Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Portsoy Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

RENFREW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Renfrew Burgh," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS).

Brigadier-General NATION: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the confidential reports on officers of the Territorial Army for the present year have now been received at the War Office; and, if so, whether any of these officers have been recommended for a major-general's command or a major-general's appointment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The reports are not due until the new year. I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that he contents of confidential reports cannot be made public.

MEDICAL OFFICERS, BERMUDA.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to tile War Office the total strength of the army garrison of half a battalion stationed at Bermuda; and whether, in the interests of economy, the establishment of three medical officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps could be reduced by arranging for the cooperation of the civil medical staff of the island?

Mr. COOPER: The establishment of the troops at Bermuda is 28 officers and 416 other ranks. The question of co-operation by the civil medical staff has been investigated, but has not been found practicable under the local conditions.

FIELD-MARSHALS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 3.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many vacancies there are at the present time in the rank of field-marshal; whether these vacancies are to be filled; and whether, in the interests of economy and in view of the fact that there is no command for a field-marshal in the Army, the opportunity will now be taken to reduce the establishment to a minimum?

Mr. COOPER: There is one vacancy, and it will be filled in due course. The answer to the latter part of the question is that Field-Marshals are on the active list, and as such, are as much eligible for employment in the Army as are officers of the rank of General.

STRENGTH.

Brigadier-General NATION: 4.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the present deficiency in the strength of the Regular Army at home and the Territorial Army; and can he give the House an indication of the steps that have or will be taken to reduce these deficiencies?

Mr. COOPER: The deficiencies on 1st October were Regular Army 7,400, and Territorial Army 43,300. Recruiting for the Regulars is progressing satisfactorily, and it is earnestly hoped that the large deficiency in the Territorial Army, which is mainly due to the failure to hold camps during the present year, will be considerably reduced in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL, GLASGOW.

Mr. LEONARD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Glasgow Corporation to allow 35,000,000 gallons of sewage to enter the River Clyde per day without chemical treatment; and whether the Department of Health intend to take any action?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I pre-
sume that the hon. Member's question refers to the sewage discharge from the Dalmuir Sewage works of the Corporation of Glasgow. I am informed that while the chemical treatment at one point in the process of purification has been discontinued, the methods hitherto followed otherwise remain unchanged. As regards the latter part of the question, the matter is not one in which the Department of Health can take any action unless a nuisance were to arise in the sense of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. In that event the question of remedial measures would fall to be considered in the first instance by the Public Health Department of the Corporation.

Mr. LEONARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of the Manager of this Department between now and May no less than nine tons of solid matter will have sunk to the bed of the Clyde and will in time become settled?

Mr. SKELTON: I am not aware of that fact, but I am aware that during the War—during, I think, the whole course of the greater part of the War—there was a similar discontinuance of the chemical processes without prejudicial results following, as far as I am aware.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Does the hon. Gentleman wish the House to believe that because this state of things existed during the War it justifies the poisoning of the waters of the Clyde at this time?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think we need enter into this question at all. I merely say that this particular state of affairs has occurred before as far as I know without inconvenience to the lieges, and consequently I wish to make it perfectly clear, as I stated, that this is primarily not a. matter for the Department of Health unless a nuisance occurs, and as far as I am aware no such nuisance occurred during the War.

HOUSING.

Mr. GUY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses in Edinburgh which have been condemned as unfit for habitation and which are still occupied?

Mr. SKELTON: The total number of houses in Edinburgh which have been condemned as unfit for human habitation and which are still occupied is 1,009.

DRAINAGE WORKS.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schemes of drainage works have been undertaken by the Department of Agriculture under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930; and if he can give the cost and other particulars of the works completed or proposed?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Owing to the financial stringency it has not been possible to undertake a comprehensive programme of arterial drainage works, but the Department have prepared and settled in terms of Section 3 (4) of the Act a scheme for improving the drainage of lands extending to 1,786 acres in the catchment area of the River Annan. The cost of carrying out that scheme is estimated at £5,400 and the amount to be recoverable in respect of the benefit to the lands affected is estimated at £4,071.

Sir M. WOOD: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage schemes of this nature?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid that there are no further sums available during the present year.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Lord SCONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state, for each of the last three years, the numbers of persons employed in the running of the hotels and inns in the State management districts of Gretna and the Cromarty Firth, respectively?

Sir G. COLLINS: The staff employed in connection with the inns, hotels and other premises in the two districts varies during the year owing to seasonal requirements. The numbers employed in August in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 are as follows (casual daily helps being excluded):—

Gretna District—93, 92, 92.

Cromarty Firth District—95, 98, 97.

Lord SCONE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if is is intended still further to reduce the number of licences in the State management areas of Gretna and the Cromarty Firth; if so, when will this reduction be effected; and how many licences will be involved?

Sir G. COLLINS: There is no intention at present to carry out any further reductions in either area.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making illegal the marriage licence at the blacksmith's shop?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

RINGROSE GAS ALARM.

Mr. PIKE: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet received a report upon the trials of the Ringrose firedamp alarm conducted at the Houghton Main Colliery, Yorkshire, the Moseley Colliery, Lancashire, and the Waun Llwyd Colliery, South Wales, stating in the case of each colliery the number of shifts during which the tests were carried out and the results obtained?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines the present position with regard to the tests which are being made underground with the Ringrose automatic gas alarm; the total number of hours the alarms have been subjected to tests in each of the selected collieries, and with what results; and when the trials are likely to be completed?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The trials of the Ring-rose firedamp alarm were started at the first and second of these collieries in August and at the third in October last: and the trials are still in progress. I have not yet received a report from any of the three pit committees by whom the trials are being conducted. I do not expect to receive one until the conclusion of the trials, unless any committee proposes to continue them for longer than six months, in which case I shall ask for an interim report at the end of that period.

Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of detectors used in each of these pits respectively?

Mr. BROWN: Speaking from memory, 50 in both the Yorkshire and Lancashire pits, and 36 in South Wales.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the three selected mines are known to be gaseous mines; and when does the hon. Gentleman expect the report will be forthcoming from these
pits? Will the report be sent along when the committees feel that they have got all the knowledge that they require, or has it to be at any specified time?

Mr. BROWN: There is no specified time, but the hon. Member knows that the trials were financed mainly by grants from the Miners Welfare Committee in the spring of the year to enable the Secretary for Mines to arrange trials on a full working scale. I had that condition in mind when I said that if a report was not received at the end of six months, I should ask for a report in any cases in which it was necessary.

Major HILLS: Seeing that a safety device has been applied for a period of four years without any failure, does not the Minister think that the time has come for speedy action?

Mr. BROWN: It is because there are other considerations than those in the supplementary question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that these exhaustive trials in these three representative pits are being carried out.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the first question? Are these selected mines known to be gaseous mines?

Mr. BROWN: I understand that they were chosen because they were the three pits which would give the best results for this particular device.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage of gas the detectors will indicate?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot do so without notice. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I shall be very glad to give the information.

WAGES.

Mrs. WARD: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines if an agreement has yet been reached between the mine-owners and the miners on the question of wages; and, if not, is he taking any steps to bring the two parties together?

Mr. E. BROWN: There is no national agreement as regards wages in the coal-mining industry, but as the hon. Member is aware, the coal-owners in each district have undertaken to maintain the existing minimum percentages and subsistence wages until July next. As regards the
second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on 25th October.

Mrs. WARD: Has my hon. Friend met either of the parties, and, if so, when?

Mr. BROWN: I shall have the advantage of meeting the representatives of the Miners' Federation to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it the intention of the hon. Member to meet the mine-owners for the purpose of extending the voluntary agreement which they entered into when the Coal Mines Act was passed this year?

Mr. BROWN: I should like to see that question put on the Order Paper.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the attention of the Minister been called to the valuable work done by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in connection with the wages of people on the railways, and will he get the assistance of his colleague for the mines also?

Mr. BROWN: I have no doubt whatever that if I desired the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman it would he among the most valuable assistance that I could get.

WINDING SAFETY DEVICE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many collieries use the Barclay patent safety device for preventing overwinding; and whether his Department has under consideration an order for the compulsory use of this or any other similar device?

Mr. E. BROWN: Section 40 of the Coal Mines Act already requires that winding apparatus ordinarily used for raising or lowering persons at shafts more than 100 yards in depth shall be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent overwinding. There is no collected information as to the numbers of the different types of contrivance which are in use.

COAL MINES ACT, 1930.

Mr. MARTIN: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has received any recommendation from the central council set up under the provisions of the Coal Mines
Act, 1930, with regard to amendments to any section of the machinery operating under the Act?

Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir. But I understand that suggested amendments are under active discussion between the central council and the district executive boards.

Mr. MARTIN: Has the Secretary for Mines any idea of the lines which these recommendations will take in the report of the central council?

Mr. BROWN: I may have ideas, but I have not seen the report, and, until I do, I can make no statement upon it.

Mr. MARTIN: When does the hon. Member expect it?

Mr. BROWN: That is not in my hands.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Has the Secretary for Mines definitely made up his mind as to policy in the event of unanimity not being reached?

Mr. BROWN: We generally do not cross our bridges until we come to them.

Miss WARD: If there is no common agreement as to the recommendation of the central council, will the hon. Member ask the Government to take action to remedy some of the grievances under the Coal Mines Act?

Mr. BROWN: In that case, I think the hon. Lady and the House had better wait and see.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. MARTIN: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has received any proposals for the rehabilitation of the export coal trade from any body of owners or merchants or representatives of the miners; and, if so, what form these proposals have taken?

Mr. E. BROWN: In a memorandum submitted to the Government earlier in the year on the subject of the continuation of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Miners' Federation represented that it was imperative that there should be a national levy for the purpose of facilitating the sale of British coal for export. I have not received any other proposals on this subject, but I understand that it is one of the matters to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member's previous question as being
under discussion between the Central Council of Coal Owners and the District Executive Boards.

Mr. MARTIN: In view of the complaints which are widespread and which have been given great publicity as to evasions of Part I of the 1932 Act, cannot the hon. Member make some statement which will satisfy all the exporters of coal in the exporting districts?

Mr. BROWN: I think the hon. Member will agree that it would be most ill-advised to make such a statement before we get the report containing the suggestions of those who are charged with the duty of administering the Act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member satisfied that Durham and Scotland are carrying out the intention and purpose of Part I of the Mines Act in regard to the fixation of prices?

Mr. BROWN: In regard to that, there is a good deal of varying information.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member seeking such information as will enable him to form a final judgment in order to make a recommendation to the Government as to the future action they should take?

Mr. BROWN: I am not only seeking but receiving information of all kinds of a varying nature.

Miss WARD: Can the hon. Member say whether the evasions of Part I are such as to warrant the Government in taking action in those cases?

Mr. BROWN: The issue to which the hon. Lady refers is a grave one.

Mr. DICKIE: Is there not almost universal agreement that it is time the export trade was freed from the restrictions and shackles of the Coal Mines Act of 1931?

Mr. BROWN: I wish that agreement were as universal as the hon. Member seems to think it is.

TONNAGE RATES, NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM.

Mr. MARTIN: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines what were the actual local rates per ton of coal raised in 1913, 1920, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, respectively,
and paid to local authorities in the Northumberland and Durham county areas?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DICKIE: Is the hon. Member aware that the mines in the county of Durham are not benefiting to the extent which it was understood they would benefit under the De-rating Act?

Following is the reply:


Average amount paid by colliery owners in local rates for all purposes.


Year.
Northumberland.
Durham.



Pence per ton of saleable coal raised.


1913
…
1.50 (approx.)
2.00 (approx.)


1920
…
Not available.


1928
…
3.85
4.09


1929
…
2.66
3.39


1930
…
0.70
1.41


1931
…
0.69
1.38

IRISH FREE STATE (GOVERNOR-GENERAL).

Mr. HANNON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can make any statement relating to the appointment of a Governor-General in the Irish Free State?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): While I have no statement to make at the moment, the House is aware that provision for the appointment of a Governor-General is made in the Treaty, and is indeed an integral part of it.

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when I may put down another question in the hope of receiving a satisfactory reply?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member may put it down when he likes.

Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Free State is going along very well without the filling of this highly expensive post?

TIN MINING INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the proposals of the Government for implementing the recommendations regarding tin mining, contained in the report of the Advisory Committee on the Metalliferous Mining and Quarrying Industry on the possibilities of developing or of reviving the working of metalliferous and associated deposits in Great Britain?

Mr. E. BROWN: The recommendations made in this report are receiving consideration. Some appear to involve only administrative action, and I am in consultation with the other Departments concerned to see how far they can be put into effect. Others would require legislation, and on these I am afraid that I can make no statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SUGAR MACHINERY (EXPORTS, AUSTRALIA).

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the export of sugar-making machinery to Australia has practically ceased in consequence of the high tariff in that Dominion amounting, even with preference, to 40 per cent. ad valorem; and if, in view of the fact that Great Britain allows a tariff preference of £23 15s. per ton of sugar imported from Australia, he will make representations to the Government of the Commonwealth that further preference should be given to British-made sugar-making machinery?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer my hon. Friend to Articles 10 and 11 of the United Kingdom-Australian Agreement signed at the Ottawa Conference. In accordance with those Articles the duties to, which my hon. Friend refers will fall for review by the Tariff Board in Australia as soon as practicable.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Australian Government to this particular case?

Mr. THOMAS: No. It would be unfair to draw the attention of any Dominion to a particular ease. The Agreement sets out that there shall be a
fair and impartial review, and the conditions governing it are also fair. It would be better, the hon. Member having put the question, to leave it at that.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman define more closely the words "as soon as practicable"? Does that mean an indefinite time, or until the revenue of the Australian Commonwealth has improved?

Mr. THOMAS: No; "as soon as practicable" requires a common sense interpretation, having regard to the fact that we trust them and they trust us, and we hope that both will do the right thing.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the Indian delegates to Ottawa on his way home went to Holland and placed an order for sugar machinery there?

WOOLLEN AND COTTON IMPORTS (GUERNSEY).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total volume of imports of woollen and cotton goods from the island of Guernsey for the last period for which figures are available; whether they were manufactured in Guernsey or whether they were re-exports; and, if so, in what country they were manufactured?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that the desired information is not available. Particulars of the imports of goods consigned from Guernsey, apart from the Channel Islands as a whole, are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, and particulars as to the country of manufacture of imported goods are not ascertained.

CHINA-WARE (IMPORTS).

Mrs. COPELAND: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of fine china was imported into this country from foreign countries during the months of August, September, and October, 1931, and the amount imported during the same months of this year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Particulars of the imports of fine china, as such, are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, but the following table shows the quantity and declared value of the total imports into the United Kingdom of translucent pottery, including all pottery known as china or porcelain, other than (a) porcelain for laboratory use or industrial purposes, and (b) electrical ware registered during the under-mentioned mouths as consigned from foreign countries:—


Month.
Quantity.
Declared Value.






1931.
1932.
1931.
1932.






Cwts.
Cwts.
£
£


August
…
…
…
3,653
1,902
17,844
9,416


September
…

…
5,273
2,493
23,976
11,124


October
…
…
…
4,757
(a)
24,970
(a)


(a) Particulars not yet available.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Sir M. WOOD: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the effect of the new import duties on the golf-club-making industry; whether he is aware that the timbers, persimmon and hickory, from which clubs are made, are grown only in the United States of America and that about 75 per cent. of the output of British golf-club makers is sent overseas; and whether, seeing that the duties operate as a preference in favour of foreign manufacturers, he will take action to ensure an early reconsideration of the question of these duties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that applications on behalf of the golf-club-making industry in connection with the import duties in question, have already been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been before them for a very considerable time, and can be do anything to expedite a decision in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that these subjects are dealt with in the order of importance.

Major - General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of refunding duty levied on specialised machinery (not manufactured in this country) imported in the period between the 1st March, when such duty was first imposed by the Imports Duties
Act, and the 16th June, when the Finance Act was passed, Section 10 of which provided for the issue of licences permitting the importation of such machinery free of duty, in consideration of the fact that the early importation of this machinery enabled firms to employ several hundred extra hands who would otherwise have remained idle during the summer months?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret that there is no power to refund the duty paid in the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. KNOX: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the extreme hardship on a firm which ordered machinery before the Import Duties were imposed? The machinery had not arrived and was actually on the high seas when the duties were imposed. The firm might have allowed the machinery to remain in bond and not have been mulcted in a fine of £1,000 by taking it out in order to give employment.

Mr. CURRY: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in what cases the Import Duties Advisory Committee have recommended a drawback on exported goods; and in what cases effect has been given to that recommendation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The only recommendations regarding drawback that have been received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee are those to which effect has been given by the Import Duties (Drawback) (No. 1)
Order,1932. The Order, and the recommendations on which it is based, will be found in Command Paper No. 4157.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (COPPER, ZINC AND LEAD).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreement has been arrived at by his Department with Empire producers of copper, zinc and lead as to the meaning to be attached to the expression first sale under the Ottawa Agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of an agreement reached between copper producers and consumers on this subject are contained in my reply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay) on the 28th October, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. The producers and consumers of lead are being invited to attend a meeting at the Board of Trade to discuss the bearings of the Ottawa Agreements on their industry and my Department is prepared to afford an opportunity for the zinc interests to consider the matter together if they so desire.

COTTON INDUSTRY (INDIA).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the initial steps taken for the formation of a trading corporation in Lancashire to conduct negotiations direct in relation to cotton-piece goods with retailers in India; and whether the Government, if approached, will facilitate the granting of guarantees for capital and interest?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter. With regard to the second part of the question, there are no provisions under which the Government could grant the financial assistance mentioned by my hon. Friend.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make available to Members of this House a copy of the agreement made between the iron and steel makers of this country and of India subsequent to the Ottawa Conference regarding the restriction of the importation of steel bars from India for the production of galvanized
sheets and tinplates to a figure of 7,000 tons per month?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that there have been recent discussions between the representatives of the British and Indian iron and steel industries which have resulted in an arrangement, satisfactory to both sides, for the use of Indian sheet bar by British concerns in the manufacture of galvanised sheet far the Indian market. The negotiations were not conducted by the respective Governments and I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to the details of the arrangement.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this experiment will remain in force until the end of the agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure whether the agreement made between the iron and steel interests is co-terminus with the Ottawa Agreements, but I believe that it is intended to cover approximately the same period.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: If I put a question down, will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to see the question on the Paper before I give a more definite reply.

STOCK EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that the last British Government conversion has been accomplished, he can hold out any hopes that British industries may also receive this assistance from cheap money by the removal of the Treasury embargo?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the restrictions now apply only to foreign issues and to optional conversions requiring public issues or underwriting. The question of a further relaxation of these restrictions is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any statement to-day on the subject.

COCOA INDUSTRY.

Mr. CHORLTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the attention of the Governments of the Dominions has been drawn to the
report of the Imperial Economic Committee on the subject of the cocoa industry (22nd Report, 88/503/22); and if he will ascertain what steps the Dominion Governments propose to take to implement the recommendations contained therein, with special reference to the proposed prohibition of the use of cocoa-butter substitutes throughout the Empire?

Mr. THOMAS: As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will explain, in answer to a later question by my hon. Friend, this matter is still under consideration in so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Pending a decision, I do not think that it would be appropriate to approach the other Governments who are represented on the committee, and to whom the report is addressed.

Mr. CHORLTON: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to implement the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Committee on the subject of the cocoa industry, 22nd Report, 88/503/33?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendations in this Report, so far as they concern His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, are principally for the consideration of the Minister of Health. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend to those recommendations and I have no doubt that they are receiving his careful consideration.

EXPORT TRADE (SWEDEN, NORWAY AND DENMARK).

Lord SCONE (for Mr. KIMBALL): 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increasing difficulty of obtaining import licences by former customers of British firms in the Scandinavian countries, especially Denmark; and whether he will state what steps have been taken by the Board of Trade to remove this check upon our export trade, particularly in view of the quantity of imports from those countries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am aware there is no import licence system in Sweden or Norway, and in the case of Denmark my information tends to show that the system has not involved any undue restriction of United Kingdom trade. I
would suggest that firms which find that there are difficulties in the way of securing licences for United Kingdom goods should get into touch with His Majesty's Minister in Copenhagen who will render them all possible assistance in the matter.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE): 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what basis the Customs assess the value of cinematograph films imported into this country; and, if the arrangement is a declaration on the c.i.f. value, whether there is any means by which the Customs may compare the declaration made with the actual earnings of the film when released?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Customs duties on imported cinematograph films are chargeable at specific, not ad valorem, rates, and in consequence the values of such films are not assessed by the Customs for duty purposes. For the purposes of the trade returns the importer of cinematograph films (as of other goods) is required to declare their value on a c.i.f. basis, and if there is any reason to doubt the accuracy of such a declaration the importer may be called upon to justify or amend it. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA CONVENTION.

Sir BASIL PETO: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether all the five principal maritime Powers have ratified the Safety of Life at Sea Convention; and whether, if they have not done so before the end of December, he intends to put the reversal of helm orders in force in the British merchant service on 1st January?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The following countries have ratified and will bring the International Safety of Life at Sea Convention into operation on the 1st January, 1933: United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. Steps are being taken to bring the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act, 1932, including those relating to Helm Orders into operation on that date.

Sir B. PETO: As the United States is not included in the list of countries which have ratified the Convention, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any probability of the United States ratifying between now and the 1st January next?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the information which has reached me, the question has been considered by the Foreign Relations Committee, and they have deferred a decision until after Congress meets.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILLED-OAT PRODUCTS (GERMAN EXPORTS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the milled-oat products, exported from Germany under the bond system with Government co-operation, included oatmeal and husked or flaked oats?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that these products are included.

MEAT AND VEGETABLE SALES.

Mr. FLEMING: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any retailers of foodstuffs, especially of meat and vegetables, have been prosecuted for profiteering since 1st June, 1932; and how many such prosecutions have been instituted, where, and wall what result?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such prosecutions have taken place.

Mr. FLEMING: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that profiteering is not responsible for the gap which exists between wholesale and retail prices?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not express an opinion as to profiteering unless individual cases were brought to my attention and were thoroughly examined.

IMPORTED WHEAT PRICES.

Mr. THORNE: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the lowest selling price of foreign wheat sold in London during the current year; and which country sold wheat at the lowest price?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the quotations published in the "Corn Trade News," the lowest selling prices per 496 lbs. of foreign wheats sold in London during the current year were as follows:



s.
d.


United States: Hard Winter (on sample)
25
6


Argentine: Rosafé (64 lbs.) ex ship
25
0


Russia: Russian (on sample) ex ship
25
0


Germany: German, ex ship
24
0

DRAINAGE WORKS, BOSTON.

Mr. LIDDALL: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total estimated cost of the work now proceeding at the grand sluice, Boston, in order to prevent the flooding of 250,000 acres of land, including parts of the city of Lincoln; whether the Treasury have agreed to make any contribution towards the cost of such work; and, if not, have the Witham Catchment Board sufficient funds to meet this necessary expenditure?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): In their application to my Department for a grant in respect of the work for repairing the grand sluice, Boston, the total cost was estimated by the Witham Catchment Board as £12,700, to be spread over three years, but I have since been informed by the Board that the total expenditure will probably be considerably greater. After a careful consideration of the application, it has been decided that no grant can be made in this case. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the Catchment Board are required by the Land Drainage Act, 1930, to precept the internal drainage boards within the catchment area for such contribution as they consider to be fair, and that they can also precept the county councils and county borough councils within the catchment area for the produce of such rate, exceeding 2d. in the £, as the majority of the representatives of these authorities on the catchment board agree.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that drainage work is of national importance and that the maximum rate permissible is 2d. in the pound, may I ask whether the Government have reconsidered their previous decision not to make grants for necessary and urgent drainage schemes?

Major ELLIOT: It. is not possible to contemplate further expenditure from central funds.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the reply is general and that no national funds will be available for drainage purposes?

Major ELLIOT: I do not think that it can be taken as general, but in this case, which has been carefully considered, I fear that no grant can be made.

NEW FOREST (ELECTRICITY GRID).

Mr. PERKINS: 35.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he proposes to repeal or amend the New Forest Act of 1877?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners are unaware of any proposal to repeal or amend this Statute.

Mr. PERKINS: 33 and 39.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether the proposed overhead electric cables over the New Forest will result in cheaper electricity for the New Forest villages;
(2) whether the proposed electric cable over the New Forest will supply the needs of the inhabitants of the village of Godshill and other villages in the vicinity?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The high tension line referred to is a link in the south-western section of the national transmission or grid system. The grid will make electricity more readily available to the supply authorities distributing in rural districts and the economies resulting from the grid system will in due course be reflected in the prices charged by such authorities.

Mr. PERKINS: May I ask whether the New Forest will be supplied by this line?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No. It cannot be supplied directly by this line.

NORWEGIAN FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir M. WOOD: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any information as to the recent financial assistance granted by the State to the Norwegian fishing industry?

Major ELLIOT: As the reply is somewhat long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE granted to the Fishing Industry by the Norwegian Government.

(a) The State during 1932 gave a guarantee to the Bank of Norway for a sum not exceeding one million kroner (about £51,000*) for loans to fishermen or fishermen's associations for curing their own fish, and not exceeding one million kroner for buyers for the purchase of fish during the big cod-fisheries of 1932.
(b) The National Exchequer and public funds have made available Kr.350,000 (about £18,000*) as a contribution towards writing down the debts of necessitous borrowers from the Norwegian State's Fishery Bank.
(c) From the Fisherman Fund of 1920 a sum not exceeding Kr.1.5 millions (about £76,000*) has been made available for loans to poor fishermen for the purchase of tackle.
(d) From the National Exchequer Kr.5 millions (about £255,000*) have been granted as capital for the foundation of a Loan Chest for Farmers and Fishermen.
(e) The State has given a guarantee amounting to 75 per cent. for sale to Russia of not more than 300,000 barrels of herrings and 3,000 tons of salt fish.

* At prevailing rate of exchange.

ROYAL NAVY (DYE FOR CLOTHING).

Captain BALFOUR: 42.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether British West Indies black logwood dye is specified or otherwise for use in the issue of Navy clothing, seamen's scarves?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Mensell): British West Indies black logwood dye is not specified for use in the manufacture of seamen's black silk handkerchiefs. The specification does not stipulate for the use of any particular description of black dye.

Captain BALFOUR: Will the right hon. and gallant Member in future specify this British Empire product in naval contracts?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I will certainly look into that, but there is an objection to dye in articles which are worn next to the skin as it sometimes sets up a peculiar irritation.

Captain BALFOUR: May I ask whether any medical report has been received on this dye?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is it not the fact that no part of a seaman's black silk handkerchief touches the skin?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I was referring to clothing which may touch the skin.

WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION (STAFF).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the office staff of the Welsh Church Commission for the years 1930 and 1931, and the estimated cost for 1932; whether the salaries of the staff and the salary of the Chairman have been subjected to any cut; and, if so, what?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The total cost of the office staff of the Welsh Church Commission (including the salary of the Chairman) for the years 1930 and 1931 was £10,290 and £9,762 respectively, and the estimated cost for 1932 is £8,864. Reductions, varying from 10 per cent., in the case of salaries of £1,000 or over, to 5 per cent. on salaries of £200 and over but less than £500 a year, were made in all salaries, including, that of the chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SALFORD.

Mr. STOURTON: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were on the live register at Salford at the latest convenient date and the number at the corresponding date a year ago?

The MINISTER of LABOUR: (Sir Henry Betterton): At 24th October, 1932, there were 16,393 persons on the registers of the Salford Employment Exchange. The number at 26th October, 1931, was 19,385.

INSURED WORKERS (STATISTICS).

Miss CAZALET: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered insured workers in industry in this country in 1913 and in 1931; and the amount expressed as a percentage of the population?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister in a position to tell us whether they are more or less to-day than they were in 1913?

Sir H. BETTERTON: They are more now. In July, 1931, they were 12,500,000. The corresponding figure for July, 1921, was 11,081,000.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the Minister bear in mind that the same classes of persons may not have been insured in 1913 as in 1931?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I did not say 1913. I said 1921. That is when the Act of 1920 was in operation.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the Minister not aware that 1913 and 1931 are mentioned in the question?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Of course the figure is very much less in 1913. The number was 1,992,000.

Following is the reply:

The estimated number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain at July, 1931, was 12£ millions; or approximately 28 per cent. of the total population. Comparable figures are not available for any date earlier than July, 1921, when the corresponding figures were 11,081,000 and 26 per cent. Before November, 1920, unemployment insurance covered only a limited number of industries, and in 1913 the number insured in Great Britain was approximately 1,992,000, or nearly 5 per cent. of the total population.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (METROPOLIS).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. THORNE:

58. To ask the Minister of Labour, if he is aware that the largest Metropolitan borough has no Employment Exchange within its area; and if he will state what action he intends taking in the matter.

Mr. THORNE: I have received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary stating that he made a mistake in replying to a question the other day, and therefore there is no need to put this question.

DISARMAMENT.

Lord APSLEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before any decision is reached with regard to the extent in which the British Government can agree with the French disarmament proposals and particularly those with regard to the international control of civil aviation, he will ensure that such agreement will in no way prevent the future development of British civil aviation, either of a private nature or on the existing and proposed Empire routes to India, South Africa, Australia, and Canada, respectively?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have not yet received the new French disarmament proposals. My Noble Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will certainly bear in mind the importance of providing fully for the future of British civil aviation and the development of air communications with India, South Africa, Australia and Canada.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While the right hon. Gentleman is thinking about these Imperial air services, will he also bear in mind the fact that the one thing this nation desires is peace?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no fear of His Majesty's Government forgetting that.

Captain BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no quota as regards privately-run lines?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot enter into details. The House may take the answer I have given as the answer, which will guide us in our general policy.

Lord APSLEY: May I ask whether the Government are considering dissociating civil aviation altogether from military requirements?

The PRIME MINISTER: That, naturally, is one of the questions which must come up.

Mr. MeGOVERN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister who was responsible for the appointment of Mr. Arthur Henderson as chairman of the World Disarmament Conference; and if he can give the amount of personal expenses paid to him since the opening of this Conference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I have been asked to reply. Mr. Henderson was appointed president of the Disarmament Conference by the Council of the League of Nations in May, 1931. The only item in the League budget bearing on the second part of the question is one of 50,000 Swiss francs for "expenses of chairman and entertainment."

Mr. McGOVERN: Is Mr. Henderson responsible to the National Government for the declaration of policy on behalf of the Government?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, he is not.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it permissible for the right hon. Gentleman in his position as chairman of that Conference to take a view contrary to that of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely there is a simple answer to the question put by the hon. Member, and the House is entitled to have it, Are the Government responsible for Mr. Henderson's utterances as chairman of the Disarmament. Conference?

Sir J. SIMON: Most certainly not, Sir.

Mr. MAXTON: I asked a question to which I think I am entitled to have a reply, whether it is permissible for the British chairman of the Disarmament Conference to take a view contrary to that of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. SIMON: The chairman of the Disarmament Conference is discharging his duties as chairman without any regard to his nationality. He is not in any way circumscribed by the fact that he happens to be a British subject.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that Mr. Henderson was invited to occupy this position irrespective of any connection with the Government?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet re-
ceived, or has considered, the new French disarmament plan, and what instructions have been given to our representatives at Geneva on the question of any restatement of Article 16 of the Covenant, of any reversion to the Protocol de Geneve, or of any extension of the Locarno guarantees to the rest of the frontiers laid down in the Peace Treaties?

Sir J. SIMON: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. An outline of the French plan was sketched by Monsieur Paul-Boncour in his speech on Friday, but the plan has not yet been deposited or communicated. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have no instructions been sent to our representatives there on those three points? The matter seems to be of importance, because the views of the President on the question are known?

Sir J. SIMON: I think my right hon. and gallant Friend will see that instructions in regard to the French plan could not be formulated before the French plan is communicated. It is not the intention, I feel sure, to discuss it the moment it is produced. There is bound to be a short period for examination.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We read the President's speech carefully. May we not find out whether these points have been dealt with?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is now repeating his original question.

BEER (BRITISH BARLEY).

Mr. LIDDALL: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider, at an early date, the readjustment of existing restrictions as to the specific gravity at which beer may be brewed so as to facilitate the use of British malting barley?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension, as there are no revenue restrictions as to the gravity at which beer may be brewed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Captain DOWER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the numerous cases of owners of property or head lessees remitting part of the rent due to them in order to assist occupiers of business or residential premises to tide over the financial depression, he will issue instructions to income tax assessors or collectors not to charge property tax upon such remission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal. The property owner would not in the circumstances suggested bear tax upon more than the reduced amount of rent paid to him. I may also point out that a tenant of business premises is entitled in computing his profits for assessment; to Income Tax to deduct not only the rent actually paid to his landlord but also any excess of the net Schedule A assessment upon the premises over the amount of that rent. In the case of residential premises any excess of annual value represents of course part of the tenant's total income for tax purposes, and this total income is subject to all the usual reliefs—reduced rate of tax, personal allowances, etc.

Captain DOWER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the tax officials say that the question whether the tax should be charged on the remitted rent is in their discretion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the owner or the tenant of the property. As I have pointed out, the owner of the property does not pay tax on the remitted rent.

DIRECT TAXATION.

Sir ALFRED BEIT (for Lieut.-Colonel MOORE): 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what has been the average amount contributed per head in Scotland and England, respectively, during the past three years towards the national revenue on account of Income Tax, Super-tax, and Estate Duties?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend has decided to have prepared as soon as possible a Return of Revenue and Expenditure for England and Scotland similar in form to that which was last issued in 1922. I hope that this return
will be ready for publication early in December, and that the information contained in it will be sufficient for my hon. and gallant Friend's purpose.

BANKS AND BUILDING SOCIETIES (LOAN INTEREST).

Captain STRICKLAND: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the communication from the Town Council of Coventry and other municipalities petitioning the Government to use every endeavour to get the banks and building societies to reduce their rates of interest on borrowed money to a level commensurate with the recent fall in interest rates; and what reply he has returned?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I have taken note of these communications, which were not worded in such a way as to call for any reply.

CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (CONDUCT).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether at the present time persons of British nationality having strong anti-British and Communistic views are allowed to continue holding permanent appointments in the Civil Service?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Treasury Circular of the 13th March, 1928, dealing with the principles regulating the conduct of civil servants. It should not be assumed that the implications contained in the question are accepted.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Minister consider circulating that document in view of the importance of the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think the document is accessible, but if the hon. Member desires a copy I will supply him with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Miss CAZALET: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider cutting alphabetical thumb indices down the sides of the Telephone Directory when the next editions are brought out?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The question of thumb-indexing the Telephone Directory has been frequently considered, but owing to the expense involved and the fact that publication would be seriously delayed, my right hon. Friend regrets that he is not able to adopt the arrangement.

Miss CAZALET: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many foreign capitals they have these indices, and does he not think that the time saved, and perhaps the temper saved, would fully justify the expenditure?

Sir E. BENNETT: I do not know what happens on the Continent, but I know that in regard to ourselves the hon. Member's suggestion would mean a cost to the Post Office and to the Exchequer of many thousands of pounds a year. The cost is estimated at £20,000. But the worst evil would arise in the delay. It would take 100 men working seven weeks to carry out the work.

Miss CAZALET: Would the Post Office consider the matter once more?

Sir E. BENNETT: I am afraid not.

TELEGRAMS (TELEPHONE CHARGE).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE (for Mr. POTTER): 60.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that where telegrams are put through the telephone in the Metropolitan area an additional charge of 2d. is made for the telephone call; and will he consider the question of dispensing with such extra charge, in view of the convenience to the public in transmitting telegrams by means of the telephone?

Sir E. BENNETT: I assume my hon. Friend refers to the fee charged for dictating a telegram from a telephone call box. This charge, which does not do more than cover the telephone operating cost involved, does not appear to my right hon. Friend to be unreasonable, in view of the additional facility for despatching telegrams at all hours of the day and night which is afforded, and he regrets he cannot see his way to abolish it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ACCIDENTS (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have occurred in the last 12 months in which it was proved that any motorist involved was not in possession of a third-party insurance?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I regret that the information asked for is not in my possession.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are taken by his Department, in conjunction with local authorities or otherwise, to bring home to motorists the existence of the highway code, especially in view of the importance attached under the Road Traffic Act to a knowledge of this document?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: For 12 months after the issue of the highway code a copy was given to every applicant for a driver's licence, and a copy is now given to every person who applies for the first time for a driver's licence. Every motorist therefore should have a copy.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law with respect to appeals from decisions of official referees; to amend in certain particulars the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, and section thirty-eight of the Solicitors Act, 1932; and to make provision for the costs of applications under section eighty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925."

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th November],
That this House views with concern the present volume of unemployment, and will welcome all proper measures for dealing with it."—[Mr. Lansbury.]

Question again proposed.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: We have now reached the third day of the Debate upon this very important topic, and I cannot hope at this stage that what I have to say will be of special interest in comparison with the speeches which have already been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, however, by the form which he has generously given to this Debate, has invited everybody, even the most modest among us, to contribute, and the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday seemed to encourage "thinking aloud" in the House upon this question. Accordingly, with the permission of the House, I venture to collect some of my wandering thoughts upon this subject and to present them to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from an angle which I think differs somewhat from that taken up to now.
I wish to say, in the first place, that, since all the nations of the world are suffering as we are from this distress of unemployment, the problem is not one which can be solved by any one country, by isolated action, but is one which will require, in the end, for its complete solution, the co-operation of all the nations. But that is not to say that each individual country by itself cannot take some action in regard to its own local problems, which nay give some ease and perhaps also put that country into a position, by reason of its own experiment and experience, to contribute in a. more valuable way to the general discussion at an international conference.
It is a platitude now to say that in the midst of a world of plenty vast numbers of mankind are in a, state of destitution and distress. There are those who think that this difficulty arises from overproduction, but I am not one of those who feel that they can entirely subscribe
to that view. I can imagine over-production of one or two or three commodities, but I find it difficult to imagine an over-production at one and the same time of all commodities. That would seem to indicate a situation in which there would be so much more wealth in the world and so much more of each commodity to exchange for other commodities that mankind would be in a better position to take advantage of the fruits of nature and the results of man's invention. This view would seem to be borne out by the illustrations which we get in the extraordinary devices adopted in various countries to meet present difficulties. For example, when you find Brazil bartering a cargo of coffee for a cargo of wheat from the United States of America it is an illustration of the fact that the difficulty does not he in overproduction of these commodities, so much as in the difficulties of exchange.
If we probe back a little further into the matter we find confirmation in multifarious directions. We discover that there are many people who wish to sell goods in various parts of the world. They have customers who would readily take those goods, but who are not able to pay for them, not because they have not adequate wealth, but because the Governments of their countries refuse to give them those facilities of exchange which are necessary to order to make payments. We readily see then that if we could put the exchanges of the world right we should render the best service possible to the trade and industry and commerce of the world. What are these countries doing? They are, one and all, trying by restrictions upon exchange to preserve such holdings as they have of gold. They are doing that because they have certain debts which they must pay to the gold-holding countries in gold, and they are nervous of allowing any diminution of the quantity which they hold for that purpose. That brings us right up to the fact that while there is a vast amount of gold in the world—though not too much—three-quarters or nearly three-quarters of it is now in the hands of two countries, while the other countries are denuded of the necessary supplies. Accordingly, I think, upon that short resumé, it must he apparent that the problem before us has certainly as one of its great factors the problem of international monetary exchange.
Now, if I may turn for a moment to our more immediate local situation you find a position which is almost equally fantastic. You find that we are living in a day of what is called cheap money, and this supply of cheap money has had one very great effect. It has enabled to be carried out the greatest conversion scheme which the world has ever known, and while there are directions in which I could not entirely agree with, and would even take the liberty of criticising some of the authorities who manage our finances, I would desire to-day to pay my meed of admiration to the skill with which these great operations have been conducted. It has required no little foresight, no little manipulation, to bring about a conversion of debt which is going to make a great change in the economic history of the world, and those who are responsible for it, I think, deserve not only our congratulations, but our gratitude.
But you have, as a result of this period of cheap money—and do not let us call it a glut of money, because that would be exaggerating the situation; there is no such glut or plethora of money in the country to-day as would not very readily be taken up if trade once resumed its normal operations—but this cheap money period has had certain results which you can find in the figures of the banks. You will find, for example, that the deposits of the joint stock banks with the Bank of England have risen since the month of February from £70,000,000 to £85,000,000, and recently to £100,000,000. I do not wish to lay too much stress upon this figure of £100,000,000, because I think it is probably temporary, but let us assume a rise from £70,000,000 to £85,000,000. That is an increase of £15,000,000, which, according to ordinary banking practice, would enable the joint stock banks to grant increased credits among their clients to the extent of £150,000,000. You find also that the deposit accounts of the banks have risen very greatly. They have risen, taking all the banks together, from something like £1,658,000,000 to about £1,865,000,000, or slightly over £200,000,000. You find at the same time that the investments of the banks have increased to the extent of a little over £100,000,000.
On the other hand—and this is the disquieting feature of the whole situation—
you find that the loans to customers, what are called the advances, have decreased also by £100,000,000. That is to say, trade is not taking from the banks the amount of money which is there and available for it. There is a certain qualification to be made here, however. The situation given is not just as bad as would appear upon the surface because the extra investments which the banks have made do gradually percolate down into trade, for this reason: When the banks buy Government securities as investments there is somebody selling them. The person who is selling those securities is, in general, somebody who wants to get a little better yield on his money than he can get out of Government securities. He is perhaps going to buy debentures or preference stocks in some good company, and the people who are selling those again are people who desire to find some more lucrative investment for their money, though probably more risky. They may be investing in common stocks, and those who are selling common stocks are buying something else, probably commodities; and in this way, in the end, you get down to a position in which trade is ultimately benefited. But that is a very slow process, as everybody has seen who has been following what has taken place in America, and our problem of unemployment, as I take it, is immediate.
We have in front of us what the Prime Minister described yesterday as a very hard winter, and I am not sure he did not describe it as a very hard and bitter winter. I do not think any words can exaggerate the distress with which our people are confronted in the months that are to come. Therefore, what is demanded of the House at the present time, as I take it, is that we should try to suggest something which can be put into operation quickly, which shall be some relief to the poignant distress now being suffered and which is likely to get worse in the course of the winter months. If that be the problem, is there anything that the Government can legitimately do which will not have any snag attached to it, which will not, as the Americans say, have a string to it, that will not, as some of the illustrations given by the Prime Minister yesterday showed, bring in its train some worse effects, some disadvantages greater than the immediate advantages that may be gained?
As I dare say the House knows, I am one of the people who have always been against extravagant Government expenditure. That is my view as the effect of it is high taxation, and high taxation is the worst thing for business, and the worst thing for business is the worst thing for employment.

Mr. MAXTON: When you were Chancellor of the Exchequer you put it up with a rattle.

Sir R. HORNE: I put up taxation with a rattle? I am the only person living who ever reduced the Income Tax by a shilling in the pound. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should challenge me upon this matter because it was regarded as a mark of incompetence on my part that I saved £100,000,000 in one year. It was said that I had made a bad estimate of my revenue when in reality I had reduced expenditure. Whatever be my own personal position the problem is much bigger than anything which concerns any individual an as I see the situation, I am persuaded—and what the Prime Minister said yesterday indicates the same point of view—that money is much better spent ordinarily by the individual who is looking after his money than it is spent by the municipality or by the State.
The illustrations which the Minister of Labour gave on Friday in opening the Debate were sufficient to show that there has been an enormous waste in the expenditure of money placed at the disposal of the Government. That is a thing which one wants to avoid, and I ask myself this question, which I would venture to put to the House: Is there any form of aid by the State to industry carrying out its ordinary operations which would bring employment at such a time as the present without undue cost to the State; without, indeed, when looked at from the point of view of the balance, any cost to the State? My mind goes back to a period more than 25 years ago, when the Government of this country lent to the Cunard Steamship Company a large sum of money at 2¾ per cent. for 20 years. That was a rate at which the company could not have borrowed money for themselves. The result of the loan of that money was that there were built the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," ships of great name and reputation. It
gave work to the people who built them, and it did not cost the Government a shilling for the whole of the money was paid back. In addition to that, it kept up the pride and prestige of Britain upon the Atlantic Ocean bringing as a consequence orders to the shipyards of this country. I ask myself whether some such operation is not possible at the present time. Of these two great ships, the "Lusitania," sank upon a fateful occasion, and in sinking saved Europe, because it brought America into the War. The "Mauretania" is still the fastest ship which Britain owns upon the oceans of the world and is proudly carrying the flag of her country in a race from which the present generation by now might have been expected to relieve her.
Is there anything we can do now similar to that which the Government did in the early part of this century? What is the situation to-day? The Cunard Company is anxious to build two ships. One of them, on which work was stopped, was alone employing 3,500 men, and there were being indirectly employed a vast number of men who were preparing the fitments which go to the building of a, great ship of that kind. The Government are paying in dole contributions a very large sum of money every week to support the people who would have been engaged in working upon that ship or upon its fitments. It is an utterly bad bargain for the State. It is a case where economy becomes waste. I am perfectly sure in my own mind that, whether by such an arrangement as the Government made in the early part of this century, namely, a loan of money at a low rate of interest or by some other device such as a guarantee, the Government can regard themselves as legitimately safe in giving this help. I believe that they can do it without the cost of a penny to the State. On the other hand it would result in saving the State a great deal. After all what is costing the country most money at the present time, next to the interest upon our Debt, is unemployment. It is costing £120,000,000 a year. Everything that can be done to reduce the amount of the cost of unemployment goes to the reduction of taxation. It aims at the very object which the business, industry and commerce of this country is constantly directing the attention of the Government.
It is not only the particular results in money that have to be taken into account in connection with this problem, because to anybody who knows what is going on in the shipping industry it must be a cause of great perturbation that increasingly the traffic of the Atlantic is going to two fast German ships. People who never travelled by anything but a. British ship in their lives are, for the sake of saving a few days time, compelled to travel by the faster ships. It is not merely that you are directing people's attention as passengers to these ships but you are directing the attention of the whole world to the fact that the supremacy of Britain on the ocean is waning, and that her place is being taken by other nations. That cannot but have a detrimental effect upon the industries of this country. It goes directly down to the question of unemployment.
I would not have ventured to make this speech in the House upon that question so strongly had the Government still to face their conversion schemes. I can well imagine that the Chancellor would have said that for the Government to go into the market either to borrow money or to advertise themselves as giving a guarantee, would have some effect upon the view which the market might take of the value of money. Now that these great conversion schemes are over, however, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's course is clear for a very considerable time to come, I say that, in my judgment, there is here a great opportunity involving no risk to the national finances; on the contrary, to the benefit of the Exchequer and to industry and employment, if the Government will only face this problem afresh.
That is only one instance, but it serves to illustrate my general proposition. I do not know what other cases there may be, but there must be some of a similar character. It does not involve waste and expenditure. It involves work given in the ordinary way in which the business of the country is carried on. It involves the employment of men at jobs on which they are skilled instead of wasting their craftsmen's hands on road making. It preserves the skill and self respect of the men who are employed when they know that they are being employed as craftsmen on jobs for which they are fitted.
4.0 p.m.
For all these reasons, I think that some inquiry ought to be directed to find out similar instances in which the Government can help in a way that would be really effective and would be no detriment to anybody in the country. For that reason, and with that view, I venture to suggest that the Trade Facilities Committee should be set up again. There may be criticisms of that committee and comments upon the work that it did, but it performed a very useful function and it created a good deal of employment. If the Government were to appoint again a body of experts I am perfectly certain that they would be able to devise legitimate and proper ways in which the credit of the country could be used in order to help industry. They would not be extravagant, for they would know that the state of the finances of the country would not allow of extravagance; and they would approach the problem with all the circumstances of the times in their eyes. With all humility, I venture to make that suggestion to the Government. Turning to another topic, let me suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I am sure is already in his mind, that it would be well to get rid of the embargo upon new issues as early as possible. That is a matter which, un-doubtedly, is somewhat oppressive to the people who are eager to take advantage of present opportunities for business, and the sooner that embargo can be removed, the better.
There is another matter of a somewhat different character which I would like to bring before the House, if the House will bear with me for a litle time. It is commonly said to be the fault of the banks that the cheap money which is available at the present time is not being used to advantage, and I would like for a moment to say what seems to me is the position of the banks. It is perfectly true that the banks are in possession of more money at the present time than they have been for the last two or three years, and it is also true that the rates for money taken all over are cheap. But what is the position of a bank when it comes to lend? I ask the House to remember that it is only an infinitesimal portion of the bank's funds which belongs to the shareholders. The money they have to lend out is, in the main, the money of their depositors, and, of course the de-
positors expect to take their money out at any time they desire. If the bank could not comply, it would be regarded as having failed to meet its obligations.
Accordingly, the bank must always hold large sums of spare cash to meet any demand that may be made upon it, and the consequence is an appreciable proportion of the bank's fund earns no interest at all. Another large portion is lent out at very low rates from day to day, frequently, as has recently happened, at 10s. and 15s. per cent., and again on longer term bills for three months at very, very small rates indeed. The result is that the bank must lend the remainder of its funds at higher rates, and that is why you sometimes see a complaint with regard to the rates which the bank charges a person upon his overdraft. I wish to say, further, that the ordinary practice of banking does not legitimately allow of long-term loans, because that might make it difficult for the banks to meet the demands of their depositors at any time the depositors choose to make them. Accordingly, it is the usual banking practice not to make loans which cannot be recalled within a year.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question after his apologia of the banks? Is he aware that many joint stock banks at the present time are not only not concerned with increased lending but are greatly concerned with withdrawing money they have lent this year?

Sir R. HORNE: I beg the House not to believe that I am making any apologia. I am giving an explanation. I should imagine that while it is true that certain clients, no doubt, are asked to repay their overdrafts, the consideration given by the banks in a great mass of cases would perhaps startle the House. But the point which I wish to make and which arrives at the practical question with which I am concerned is this: I have indicated that the banks cannot, in the ordinary way, allow loans for more than a year. At the present time the trouble, I think, with the bulk of the people who wish to get money from the banks is not the rate of interest which they charge but the conditions of the loan. The men who are wanting money to rebuild their factories, to get new equipment, to extend their machinery,
are people who ordinarily have no hope of paying back this year. They want the money, perhaps, for five years or even ten years and the banks of this country, going on the very sound principle which I have described, are not prepared to grant loans for any such period. They could not, consistently with the position in which they stand to their depositors, and what is missing at the present time in our economic structure, is the kind of organisation which would give loans of moderate sums for a period of from five to ten years to people who have perfectly good businesses, and who could be trusted in the ordinary course of business to pay back at the end of the period.
At the present time there is nothing between the banks and the large issuing houses. The large issuing house does not deal with the kind of cases to which I am referring. It only deals with the case where the issue is large enough to justify the expenditure. The Macmillan Committee dealt with this question, and put forward the suggestion that some arrangements should be made to fill this gap in our economic structure. From my personal experience, I know it to be one of the necessary things to be done at the present time. Yon may say that this is something which people ought to get together and do at once by themselves, and in a general way at ordinary times I could assent to that point of view. But these are not ordinary times, and you have got to galvanise things into action because of the necessities of the country. I think the help of the joint stock banks in this matter could be very great, and I am perfectly certain that they would be willing to give it. They could give a very great deal of advice as to the character of these loans, and I am not sure that they would not be able to give active monetary help if the matter were put before them in a way which the Government might devise.
I have consulted nobody about this, and I am only putting forward a suggestion of my own, but I venture to propose to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might reasonably get in touch with the heads of the joint stock banks and discuss this problem. At the moment it is tragic that so much money is available and the method of taking advantage of it is not open to the ordinary trader.
This is a thing upon which, it seems to me, the Government could give great help. I would go even as far as to say that if in order to begin the first of these organisations—because I think it would be followed by many others—it was necessary for the Government to give some guarantee for the original capital, it would be well worth while to do it. I believe it would help industry in this country at the present time more than most things you can devise.
I turn from that particular side of this problem to another which is more in the future and less germane perhaps to the immediate question before the House. The Government have perpetually said—and I think rightly so—that one of the first objects of our economic policy must be to raise prices. I think that a similar view is held in practically every country in the world at the present time, and I do not think that you will find any body of economists who would dissent from that point of view. We discussed this matter in an earlier part of the year. I ventured at that time to suggest ways in which it could be done, and while the methods have not been carried as far as I would like to see them, nevertheless the Bank of England has undoubtedly been buying Government securities and extending credit and, as we all know, the House of Commons passed a Resolution increasing the fiduciary issue of the country by £15,000,000. In that connection I should like to direct the Chancellor's attention to the fact that the Act authorising that extension expires, I think, in a few months and I hope sincerely that the permission granted by that Act will be prolonged and not be allowed to terminate.
But what we are facing to-day is strange when we consider all that has been done. Instead of prices having risen since we first debated this matter in this House, gold prices have steadily fallen. Sterling prices to-day are practically at the same level as they were when we went off the Gold Standard, in spite of the great fall there has been in sterling, and the fact is that sterling to-day purchases more in commodities than it did in the year 1927. That ought to be sufficient evidence to anybody that they need not be perturbed about the fall that has taken place in sterling, or even if it went
further. If you have regard to the prices of 1927, the relative level of sterling measured as people measure it in dollars would be something like three dollars in stead of $3.30 cents. as it is to-day. Nobody therefore need be anxious, as I have said, about the fall that has already taken place. But now what has been done to raise prices? Cheap money has evidently not raised them, and we do not know how long it will take to raise them. I agree that cheap money in the process of time will ultimately have the effect of putting up prices, but, as I have said, it is a slow process.
If I may diverge for a moment, will the House remember that price is the sum of money in cash or credit which you pay for a unit of goods or services? It follows that average prices depend, on the one hand, upon the amount of available money, and, on the other hand, upon the amount of available commodities. You can raise prices by restricting or diminishing the quantity of commodities or by increasing the amount of money available. I am leaving out of account the question of the velocity of the circulation of money which would only complicate the matter. People have been trying for some time to restrict the output of commodities and we know what a great failure attempts to raise prices by that means have proved. Therefore, we turn with a little more hope to the other side of the picture, namely, the question of increasing the amount of money. This has particular significance at the present time. In the first place I think everyone is agreed that the segregation of gold in France and America to such an enormous extent has lessened the amount available as a basis of credit in the rest of the world and has had the effect of depressing prices; and again we have to keep in mind the fact that both the gold delegation at Geneva and the Macmillan Committee have laid it down as their opinion that by 1940, looking to all the prospective gold that one may anticipate, there will not be enough gold in the world, no matter how well distributed, to do the world's business.
Are we then, in the future, to go through the same poignancy of distress as we have recently experienced from lack of available money for the business of the world; are we going to have again the same sort of hardships as were twice en-
dured in the last century which were cured in each case by the discovery of new goldfields? Surely some way out must be found by intelligent human nature in dealing with a problem of this kind which has beset man many times before. We have all the experience of those years; is there nothing that we can devise in order to meet the situation? At the present time certain very important factors have emerged. The two great gold hoarding countries in the world are America and France. What is the message we get from America at the present time? Two parties there are struggling for victory to-day. The Republican party were so impressed with the question of the necessity of supplementing gold by silver that they have, according to their own declaration made through President Hoover, insisted upon the question of the remonetisation of silver being put upon the agenda of the Monetary Conference which is to assemble next year. On the other hand Mr. Roosevelt, who may by to-night have been elected President of the United States of America, has gone much further. He has declared boldly for the remonetisation of silver and has indicated that he thinks it is a first necessity for increasing the trade of the world. He said in an interview which he granted last week that through the remonetisation of silver he wanted, amongst other things, to make it much more easy for the debtors of the world to pay their debts.
If, next, we look across the channel to France we find that last week M. Caillaux, who, I should say, is, without exception, the most eminent amongst all the authorities on national finance in Europe, declared in a speech that the first necesity of the situation was to supplement the gold of the world by the remonetisation of silver. What does that mean? It means inflation; but I do not think that by this time anybody is afraid of the word inflation. The operations I have described which were undertaken by the Bank of England are very good examples of inflation and to increase the money supply of the world by the remonetisation of silver would not differ in principle from the discovery of a new goldmine. Can it be suggested that even the most ardent anti-inflationist would protest against a goldmine being opened up on the ground that it was going to add to the money of the world? Silver
would add to the money of the world in precisely the same way.
I hope the House will forgive me if for a few minutes I describe what the history of this matter has been. Some people talk as though they thought that Great Britain had always been on the Gold Standard. The truth is that the world has been served far more by silver than by gold. For centuries silver was the ruling currency of the world, being much more in use than gold. I quoted the other day a passage from Shakesspeare which indicates how it was in Shakespeare's time. In the Merchant of Venice Bassanio refers to
Gaudy gold, hard food for Midas
and speaks of silver as:
Thou pale and common drudge 'tween man and man.
That was the situation as between the two metals. Silver did the ordinary business of the ordinary man and gold was for the wealthy. Great Britain was on a bimetallic standard down to 1816 and France down to 1873. The other nations of the Latin Union—Switzerland, Greece, Belgium, and Italy—were also upon a bimetallic standard. The United States of America used both gold and silver as monetary standards down to 1873. All that long period of industrial progress in the first three-quarters of last century was based upon both gold and silver, because although it is true that we in this country deserted silver we got the full advantage of the bimetallic standard in all those other countries and in our exchanges with the silver countries using always the known ratio which the bimetallic countries had set up. Trade between the silver using countries and Great Britain as a gold using country worked perfectly smoothly and was facilitated by the fact that there was a known ratio between the silver currency and the gold. But after 1873, when these other nations abandoned silver, we had a very different situation.
Why was silver abandoned? Germany, after conquering France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 stipulated that the indemnity of £200,000,000 payable to her by France should be paid in gold. Having obtained all this gold Germany abandoned her silver standard and proceeded to throw all her surplus silver into the mint of France, and France realising that in this way she was paying her indemnity
twice over felt compelled to close her mint to silver, and she was followed by the other nations of the Latin Union and afterwards by America. That is the completely adventitious reason why bimetallism was given up at that period of time. Anybody who has studied the commercial and industrial history since 1873 will realise the great misfortunes and vicissitudes that were endured and were very largely due to the fact that the amount of money in the world had been lessened, whereby prices dropped and commodities became in some instances unsaleable. It was that which led to the great bimetallic agitation here in the 'nineties when the late Lord Balfour was the great protagonist of the remonetisation of silver. At that time I was a student of economics and became a partisan of that view which I have never deserted. The bimetallic agitation of that time was really only defeated in the end by the immense new discoveries of gold in the Rand. The world, being once more supplied with a vast quantity of money, was able to carry on with prosperity and to get prices up to such a level as would enable humanity to live. Now again we are facing vicissitudes greater even than they were then.
There is one thing to which I wish to draw attention. The result upon the East of the abandonment of silver by these great countries was catastrophic. China and India have hoarded silver for centuries. It is computed that there is in China now a stock of silver amounting to at least 2,000,000,000 ounces and in India a hoard of silver amounting to 6,000,000,000 ounces. That was hoarded during long periods when the price of silver was never at the level it is now. For a long period silver was worth roughly 4s. an ounce and it rose to 7s. 6d. an ounce in the War, when we had to buy silver from America in order to pay for the goods we had bought from India. Curiously we paid under the Pitman Act a dollar an ounce for silver which the Finance Minister in India is to-day selling at 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d.–1s. 6d., I believe it is now. Recently silver got down to as low as 1s. Since we went off the Gold Standard it has been worth about 1s. 6d. in sterling. I ask the House to imagine the effect on all that vast horde of people in the East, representing half of the whole world's population, thousands
of millions of people whose savings have been so depleted, cut down in value to a third of what they were previously worth. What do you imagine is the effect with regard to the purchasing power of these people who used to buy so much from the West? It is the greatest deterrent from which our trade has suffered and every country is suffering. It is recognised in America that their trade with China has been cut in half because the value of the hoard of silver in China has been so greatly depleted.
4.30 p.m.
The situation has been brought about really by artificial causes. People talk as if gold were somehow immutable and always of the same value while silver is a fluctuating thing. If we were to demonetise gold to-morrow we should find as big a fall as we have seen in the case of silver. It is due to the fact that the central banks of the world undertake to pay a certain price for all gold brought to them that gold keeps its value, and if we remonetise silver there will be no difficulty in keeping it at such a ratio to gold as may be determined. To-day I do not wish to put before the House any complete scheme of bimetallism. Personally I believe that ultimately the world will come to that solution, but if the nations do consider this problem I do not wish them to waste time in fighting about what the ratio of silver to gold is to be. Therefore I would venture to put forward this plan for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that very soon he has to meet envoys from other States upon this question. The nations should agree. It would be quite sufficient if Britain and America and France agreed—indeed it would be quite sufficient if only Britain and America agreed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should put before the Conference a proposal that the nations, whoever they are, should agree to take into their metallic reserves a certain percentage of silver at the market price. Assume that we have to-day £142,000,000 of gold. I think that that roughly is the amount that the Bank of England holds. Assume that we were to have 20 per cent. of that in silver. That would represent metallic reserves in white metal of between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000, and it would release from reserves that amount of gold which would
be free to add to the general basis of credit for the world. If America and Britain and especially America and Britain and France, were to adopt such a plan, it is quite obvious that there would no longer be this very rigid position in regard to gold, which has so deflated prices. It might also be stipulated that, in the same proportion as silver was held in the metallic reserves of the various countries, debts could and should be paid in a similar amount and in a similar ratio. It is a very significant thing that even after we went off the Gold Standard, the Bank of England still kept a certain amount of silver in order to discharge its obligations by the issue of silver bullion, and there is no reason why again a similar practice should not be followed.

Mr. DAVID MASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that we should pay in silver for the payment of gold debts?

Sir R. HORNE: I have not the slightest doubt that what Mr. Roosevelt said in the interview to which I have referred, as to the action that America was prepared to take, would apply to England. He said that American debts should be paid partly in silver, although American debts are gold debts. It would be a very great relief to all the nations of the world to discharge their gold debts to America partly in silver. It would give great relief to the exchanges, the position of which is causing great dislocation at the present time.
I apologise to the House for taking so much time. I only venture before sitting down to say that, a plan of the kind which I have suggested would have an immediate result upon our trade. I am not suggesting that this proposal with regard to silver is going to solve the whole problem. I do not make any such claim as that. I say that it would have an immediate effect upon the trade of the world. I beg the House to remember the report that was made by the British Economic Mission to China a few years ago. They said:
Great Britain has so large an interest in China's trade that we trust she may be among the foremost to take action with a view to ascertaining what can be done by international agreement to raise the value of silver. We should be among the first to endeavour to arrive at an international understanding for re-establishing silver as a standard basis of credit.
In another part of their report, they said:
There exists in China to-day one outstanding problem which faces all nations desirous of selling their goods in the China market. The deplorably low silver values, and the consequently much reduced buying of the vast populace are factors contributing to restrict the increase of imports into China from foreign countries.
We all know how Lancashire and South Wales have been affected. Just one further quotation, from a speech made recently in Bombay by Sir Osmond A. Smith, Governor of the Imperial Bank of India, which is the governing bank of India. Sir Osmond Smith, not many months ago said, at the annual meeting of his bank:
When one realises that the teeming millions of India and Asia are half starved and less than hale clad, one can scarcely agree that there is any over-production in regard to requirement, but there is certainly over-production relative to purchasing-power. If this is conceded, the question then arises as to how purchasing-power can be stimulated, and one answer readily presents itself. By the rehabilitation of silver through reasonable stabilisation of its value in relation to gold. If this could be accomplished, I feel sure the improvement would be immediate and lasting, and it would not be long before surplus commodities were absorbed and some measure of prosperity restored.
That is the problem which T put before the House. I am convinced that of all the things that could be done—I will not put this forward as a permanent panacea to solve the whole problem—to put silver once more in a proper place in the monetary systems of the world would do more to start trade and industry going again than any other single device you could adopt.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: More than a year ago, in June of last year, before the crash, when things were beginning to go, I said in this House—or rather the previous House—that either costs must come down or prices must go up; that costs could not be brought down, so that therefore prices must go up, and that to bring about that, something had to happen. Something had to go, and that it had better be the currency. That was an unorthodox view at that time; almost prophetic. When I sat down, in silence, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) waved his magic hand and made me respectable, and blessed the views that I expressed. It is true that a few days later he ate his words
in the "Times" but for the moment there was that agreement between us as of those who stand alone against the world.
In the first half of the speech delivered to-day by the right hon. Gentleman I said to myself: "Here again is an unorthodox man in advance of his time." He was so unorthodox that I must try to show that his unorthodoxy is also prophetically right. He was not arguing for the expenditure of money on the Cunarder on orthodox lines. As an orthodox economist he would know perfectly well, even as the Treasury know perfectly well, that if it were an economic project, money would be forthcoming for it. He argued for the expenditure, and for wise spending of public money on that project, because he is a convert to the view that at the present time wise expenditure of money, whether public or private, is to the advantage of the economic position of this country. He is not the only one who thinks like that. It is the new creed, with followers for the last two years at any rate. Even while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, constant deflation was the aim and end-all of the Treasury.
That was a time when I was more rigidly orthodox, and I accused him of not properly making his Budget balance. I want now to congratulate him upon the fact that he brought down the Income Tax instead of balancing his Budget. Unorthodox as that was, it was right. Now that he advocates wise spending, I think he is right again. We shall have to reshape our ideas. Deflation is still the god of the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). Deflation has been the orthodox creed throughout, and we now have the very difficult job of trying to show that it is not the best in the present world. We came off gold. That was a heresy and a terror to every one of the orthodox economists. Yet now, every one knows that we did the right thing in coming off gold and that coming off gold is a blessing. Every one knows that we shall never return to it. I must regretfully inform the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead that we shall never return to it, even in conjunction with silver. Leave silver and gold alone. What we want is stability of prices and not a metallic basis for prices.
I do not think that we shall ever re-return to either gold or silver, but if it is a question of returning to something solid in the Bank of England on which to build our credit, let us choose Wedgwood china. [Interruption.] Wedgwood china has about the same value as silver, and it is made in this country instead of being made in Nevada and Colorado. I will not follow the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead that the re-monetization of silver would benefit the silver-owning countries. It would. They would again be buying our goods, and we should be buying their silver above its market rate. That would send up the price of silver, which would benefit every country which had hoards of silver at the expense of other currencies. The benefit would be to some extent out of the pockets of those who, like ourselves, have no silver. We ought to banish from our minds any hope of putting either gold or silver, or anything that is a monopoly of any other country, or if not a complete monopoly, a limited monopoly, as the basis of the present system, or of thinking that it is so important that we cannot do without it. We have come off gold but prices still go down, though not so much here as elsewhere. Even money that is new capital has become cheap. In other words, deflation still continues.
It appeals to common sense that money, our standard of value, should possess a fair stability of purchasing power. Since 1929, gold has undergone a great rise, which our departure from the Gold Standard has not yet served to correct. Here, as elsewhere, though less here than elsewhere, prices, even measured in sterling, have continued to fall. Deflation still continues. I want the House to understand that. We who are arguing for reflation have seen things constantly going on in the direction of deflation, even though the common sense of the country as a whole has come round to the opposite policy. All are now agreed that we must, if we can, reflate prices—say to the 1928 level. I think that that is more or less common agreement.
Inflation—horrible word!—can be intended and done deliberately, or it can be, as in 1931, unintended, surprising and fearful. One would avoid, if possible, a repetition of that general surprise and fear which produced this House of Com-
mons. Those of us who saw and understood, like the right hon. Gentleman, and a few on this side also, were neither surprised nor afraid. I should like here to say one word about the perpetual blaming of the Labour Government for this. They inflated, or led to inflation; they did not know what they were doing; it came about as if it were a bolt from the blue. On the whole, inflation was desirable, and, although it may be true that my right hon. Friends here did not know what was coming when this wise expenditure of the Labour Government was going on just at the time when the Labour Government was broken up, it was broken up by Mr. Citrine and Mr. Bevin, who did know perfectly well, and who were advocating inflation and the leaving of gold exactly as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and myself were. They, too, knew that an ordered, understood reflation meant a scaling down of debts and a scaling up of prices, and the revivification of industry, which no one wants more than the trade unionists.
The kind of inflation called reflation means deliberate action by the Government to bring about an upward movement of all wholesale prices. To-day that is the principal need of industry—to keep prices up, to bring prices up. This Government madly fly, without any guiding principle whatever, from quotas to tariffs, and from subsidies to madness, to do that which ordered reflation would bring about in an intelligent manner, and a manner satisfactory to other interests besides those who want the prices up. While they do this, unemployment surges to and fro. If unemployment in the agricultural industry is reduced by bringing meat imports down, our exports go down too, and the pottery trade suffers. If, then, protection is given to the pottery trade, and prices go up in the pottery trade, immediately some other trades will suffer as the result of that protection. You get this mad surging to and fro of unemployment due to pressure upon the Government to protect one industry or one interest, one after another, whereas, if you got your prices up by ordered inflation—

Mr. D. MASON: What is that? Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain what he means by reflation?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would, but I do not want to be too long. As a matter of fact, I can refer the hon. Member to something which will satisfy him perfectly. If we want to bring prices back to the 1928 level, we have in favour of that policy the Macmillan Report, we have Sir Arthur Salter, we have the economists who wrote a letter to the "Times," and I might also mention that we have a number of statesmen in this House many of whom have had to recant all their previous "doxies." We have the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hill-head; we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill); we have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). Indeed, all the statesmen who have been thinking about this matter are in agreement with the economists on this point, and, best of all, the "Times" newspaper on Friday published a special article on its "splash" front page—an admirable article. I wonder how many of those hon. Members opposite who are supposed to be guiding this country to-day have even read that article. [Interruption.] I should not suppose that my hon. Friend would; ho is not responsible for government. That special article in the "Times" not merely showed that reflation would bring back prices, but it showed how to bring reflation about, and that is the point that I particularly want to emphasise.
Before discussing the definite proposals made in this article, let me state one or two other facts. Sir Ernest Benn, prince of economy, is now driven to the necessity, owing to the pressure of Christmastide, of trying to distinguish between the expenditure of private money and the expenditure of public money. He wants everyone to spend money which they have not got in buying Christmas presents, so that trade may benefit. When he is reproached with the fact that this is extravagance, and not economy, he replies: "This is private money. I would never think of allowing the Government to spend a halfpenny; by all means let them cut salaries and everything else; but the private person must really break his bank in order to continue his expenditure." We all know perfectly well that it makes no difference whether it is the Society of Friends who find the money for that valuable work
of providing allotments in colliery districts, or whether the money is found by the Government. That makes no difference to the economics of the country whatsoever. It is wise expenditure. It may not be economic expenditure in the sense of returning a dividend, but it is wise expenditure, and it makes no difference at all, as regards any of such expenditure—whether it be on the new Cunarder, of on the pulling down of slums and the rebuilding of decent property in their place, or whether it be on the making of new roads—so long as it is wise expenditure, whether it is got from the taxpayers' money, or whether it is got by voluntary contributions, or whether it is got by societies or trusts; it has the same effect in employing people who would otherwise be idle, and in doing good work.
I want, therefore, to clear away altogether the idea that it is good for private people to spend money and is bad for the public to do so. What happens is this: Supposing that I absolutely run out of clothes and order some new ones, I employ labour. It is quite possible for all of us here to order some new clothes—[Interruption]—I do not say pay for them, but order them. But what happens when the private individual does that indefinitely? If I go on doing so, what will happen will be that I shall become bankrupt; I shall not be able to pay. That is what happens when you have this wise expenditure of private money. But what happens when you have similar wise expenditure of public money? The State does not go bankrupt, but sterling goes down and prices go up. Wise expenditure leads to reflation of the currency, a reduction in the value of the pound, and a rise in the price of commodities. Reflation involves higher prices, but not necessarily higher costs, and it involves a margin of profit to tempt adventure. It also involves a lowering of the value of sterling, and, therefore, a restriction of imports, which is exactly what all hon. Members opposite are clamouring for. Also, the lower value of sterling means a bonus on exports, which is what the export trade wants at the present time; and, finally, it involves a writing down of the purchasing power of all rents, debts and fixed charges, and a sterling increase in the return of taxes. That is the result of
reflation. Is it worth it? Yes. I think every hon. Member will say that it is worth it. How can it be done? The "Times" article gives a clear policy.
In the first place, it points out that we need a clear policy for the International Conference that is coming. It is no use the Prime Minister saying, as he did yesterday, "Wait till we have the International Conference, and then we will put things right." It is no use his saying that, unless he knows what he is going to propose to that Conference. The House heard the Prime Minister speaking yesterday, but I would defy any Member to say that he came away, after listening to that speech, knowing what was in the Prime Minister's mind so far as this Conference is concerned. There are two alternatives. If, on the one hand, he had a clear idea of what he was going to do, and if it was a policy of reflation, he was wise and right to keep it dark, because, if we are going to do that, it is just as necessary to keep it dark till the last moment as it was in the case of the Conversion Scheme, which was so admirably kept in the shadows in this House. On the other hand, if he has not a scheme, if he is not clear as to what he is going to do, then I say that his continued direction of the affairs of this country is a national disaster. We really must have governors who think these things out. Whether they come to a right conclusion or a wrong conclusion, let us have some conclusion of their own, and not a conclusion which shields itself perpetually by the pathetic remark that there are experts on both sides. A country which, like ours, is not on gold, can reflate independently, and could do so before the Conference. So says the "Times." The "Times" article advocates the formation of a reflation fund. It says that:
The allocation of existing expenditure to the fund would pro tanto relieve the Budget and the taxpayer. Fresh expenditure on development schemes, whether undertaken by the Government or autonomous bodies, should also be financed from it.
It is suggested that the fund itself should be raised by short-term loans, and it is pointed out that:
It would enable the banks to expand credit and pump fresh money into circulation on whatever scale is required to restore prices.
It would enable the Government to undertake to impose no fresh taxation during the
reflationary period, and even to remit existing taxation where that presses hardest.
It would be a visible sign that the Government was taking the policy of reflation seriously. This would check the ravages of private deflation and give the business world confidence that a further fall in the general price level would not be allowed to occur.
5.0 p.m.
There you have a definite plan of how to carry out a policy advocated by all the economists. I am not satisfied that a fund need be established at all. It seems to me that, if wise expenditure were taken up by the Government, and if the Budget was left unbalanced, if, therefore, there was a reflationary policy carried out, sending down sterling and sending up prices, we should get the greatest blessing from the traders of the country, and at the same time we should not get that extravagance and waste which comes from the indiscriminate unchecked inflation. You can stop such reflation as soon as prices reach the 1928 level. Then and not till then the taxpayer must meet the bill and balance his budget; but give the taxpayer a chance, give business chance, by allowing the pound to go down, with all the drawbacks that that has to the fixed chargers. Allow the world to build up our civilisation once more upon a sound financial basis, a smaller pound tied no longer to gold or silver but to purchasing power based on the productive capacity and foreign trade of the country itself.

Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: I am venturing to address the House because we are all making what contribution we can and putting forward our ideas upon this very difficult subject. I represent a constituency which even in these difficult times is seeing the advent of new industries. Various factors have helped to bring new industries to Middlesex. For one thing there is the proximity of the great London market, with easy access to the Continent. Again there is the general movement of industries southwards, perhaps hurried on by difficulties such as the excessive rates in the more depressed areas of the North. Again, there is the change in the character of industry, I. mean the change from the heavier to the lighter trades, which means that industry is less dependent than before upon the coalfields. But the thing that has helped us most in Middlesex has been the change in fiscal policy. We felt the benefit of
tariffs so far back as 1928, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) imposed a duty upon foreign motor tyres. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would class that as a measure of inflation or of deflation. At any rate, it helped us considerably, because almost immediately an American concern came and placed a factory within our boundary which is giving us employment for between 800 and 1,000 hands.
But that is not the only thing. It goes beyond that, because you get all the benefit of bringing in raw materials, for instance, cotton from Egypt, spun arid woven in Lancashire before being supplied, rubber from Malaya, which is brought up the Thames, again giving employment to the transport industries and also to an Empire industry. In addition there is all the contribution to rates and taxes This is no mere transfer of employment from the United States to this country. It goes further than that, because we are now beginning not merely to supply the British market but also the Continental market, which was recently supplied from the United States direct. No one has been damaged, prices have not risen and the only effect has been to increase employment in that district.
That is only one example. There are many others. I am informed that one of the great railway companies has had no fewer than 607 inquiries in the last year from firms wishing to set up factory sites. About half that number come from foreign firms and no fewer than 68 factories have have been actually established on that one company's system within the last year—a very remarkable figure. In the area to the West of London we have starting up, in places like Park Royal, Slough and Brentford, American, German, Dutch and French firms. In fact we are becoming quite international. I will refer to one in particular on the borders of my own constituency, a world famous firm of French manufacturers of scent who are now, as a result of tariffs, in process of putting up a new factory, which will soon be employing at least 200 people. That is the home market, but equally important is our export trade, and I have, in my association with the Department of Overseas Trade, had an opportunity of observing something of the export side of industry. It is obvious
that foreign countries are now anxious to increase their purchases of British goods and to preserve a share of our market. I had occasion recently to go to Copenhagen, where an exhibition was taking place, and I formed the opinion that, good friends of ours as the Danes have always been, there would not have been quite as many Union Jacks hanging in the streets had it not been for the change of our fiscal system.
Some people have held that our export trade will be damaged and unemployment increase by the termination of the Russian Treaty. I was recently also in Russia and I observed there a similar anxiety to preserve a share of the British market, and I believe now for the first time, as a result of terminating that treaty, we shall have an opportunity of discussing with the Russians on level terms the trading possibilities between our two countries. After all, is there anything unfair in suggesting that we should have the same selective power in dealing with Russian imports as they have in dealing with ours? I believe that, if it is handled on sound business lines, far from our trade with Russia being diminished, in the long run it will actually be increased.
If industry is to go ahead, I would beg the Government not to embark on wide and expensive schemes. We tried it before. We had vast expenditure on roads and on unemployment, and the Minister of Labour very adequately dealt with the value of those proposals in his admirable speech last week. Still there are some people who will never learn by experience and we still have eminent economists telling us that we must urge local authorities to spend still more public money upon buildings and undertakings generally. I have heard that certain animals, when they are hard pressed, as a last resource on occasion take to the water, which may account for the fact that these learned people are so anxious that local authorities should build swimming baths, of all things. The vast majority of Members declared for tariffs at the last Election. For a long time we have given Free Trade a run. I would beg of them in the interests of employment to give tariffs an equally good and fair chance. If you do that, and do not crush us down with still more
taxation, I believe that we m these new areas will be able in return to help you by absorbing more people in our new industries and at the same time, by purchasing materials—coal, steel and machinery—lend a helping hand to areas which are less fortunately placed than we are.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: This has been an exceedingly interesting Debate and may well prove to have been a very useful one. We have all agreed to put aside all question of the rivalry of party programmes. We have drawn a discreet veil over each others past commitments or alleged inconsistencies, and we have eschewed the ordinary controversial discussions which have so often proceeded during this Parliament. I shall not be tempted to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken, who has made out an able case for the Protectionist system, a case which would be open to easy reply, but I shall forgo my opportunity in that regard. The House wishes to get to close quarters with the unemployment problem, to see it, gaunt and stark, as it is, and to make up its mind what is to be done now. The fact that to-day the statistics of unemployment show a welcome improvement will not be regarded, I think, in any quarter of the House as a reason why we should relax our efforts in dealing with the whole problem.
I think there is also universal agreement in the House that, given the present economic system, there is no alternative, in solving that employment problem, to the restoration of ordinary trade. I think right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite will agree to that and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said as much yesterday. The Prime Minister strongly emphasised that view and those of us who have advocated large enterprises for national development have never said they were anything more than a supplement to the development of ordinary trade. On every occasion when I myself have spoken in the House or in the country I have declared that the sole full remedy for unemployment is the restoration of ordinary trade.
Many of the proposals that have been made and discussed, dealing with housing, land settlement, allotments, meat control, whatever it may be, useful
as many, possibly almost all of them, may be in their several measures, must be regarded, in relation to the vastness of the problem that faces us, as minor factors. The unemployment problem of nearly 3,000,000 out of work can only be solved by setting to work great economic factors which will deal with the situation as a whole. I would give one illustration on this fact. The only time when the figures of unemployment have shown a really large decrease in a short period was immediately after this country went off the Gold Standard. The departure from the Gold Standard was open to many grave disadvantages. I am not arguing whether it was on the whole a good or a bad thing, but the effect within a few months was that there was a great demand for our exports through the depreciation of the pound. Manufacturers who had been seeking orders in vain for months and years suddenly found them forthcoming. Factories in the North of England and elsewhere had a stimulus and were kept busy, and between September and December of last year the number of the unemployed went down by 300,000, whereas in the previous year in the same period it had gone up by 500,000. That stimulus was only of brief duration. Half the world has now gone off the Gold Standard. Other causes have come into operation and the result has not been continued. If we wish to deal in this matter of the unemployed, not with 5,000 here, 10,000 there or 50,000 in another place, but on a scale of hundreds of thousands and of millions, it can only be achieved by the operation of world-wide economic forces.
The depression, or the present intensification of it, came from America. As the weather forecast says, the depression was travelling eastward across the Atlantic, and the causes of it, reduced to the simplest elements, are now known universally to have been these: America, having to receive large sums in payment of interest and sinking fund on debts and lending large sums also in capital to Europe, had become a creditor nation instead of a debtor nation as she was before the War. At the same time, not realising this or the consequences of it, she raised gradually her Customs tariffs, with the result that the inflow of goods to the United States was made exceedingly difficult. France, also, was in much
the same position, and the result was that there was an economic vacuum, and those two countries sucked up most of the gold of the world. As long as America continued to lend capital to Europe after the War the effect of these events was masked, because she left in Europe in the form of loans a large part of the money being paid to her by her debtors. Furthermore, the lending of capital continued to help to stimulate American exports and all went well, America was exceedingly prosperous, and the rest of the world not so very unprosperous. Then there came a sudden change with the failure of a great Austrian bank, and it was discovered that a large part of Europe was, from the American point of view, not creditworthy. The lending of capital stopped quite suddenly, and with it there was a great fall in American exports, and, as a consequence of that fall, American production was suddenly diminished.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: May I interrupt—

Sir H. SAMUEL: Let me finish my argument. The dividends which were being paid by American firms were imperilled, the Stock Exhange values of a great number of American companies collapsed, banks failed almost all over the United States and the great depression, of which we are now all the victims, took place owing mainly to those causes. About the same time the Federal Farm Board was established—one of those experiments continually made in various countries in the interests of farmers, to try to keep up prices artificially—with the consequence that immense stocks of wheat and of cotton were collected in America, overhanging the market, causing not the maintenance of prices, but the most catastrophic fall of the prices of wheat and cotton which has ever been known. How often it occurs that Parliaments, undertaking measures of this sort with the best of intentions, secure results exactly the opposite of those which they desire. The consequence of all this has been what we now see, namely, that in America and all over the world there are 30,000,000 of workers idle, and the results may be seen in the back streets of any of our industrial cities.
For my own part, I doubt whether there will be any great relief of the world-wide depression unless it begins in
the United States of America, and the relief must travel eastwards across the Atlantic as the depression originally did. It is not for us to express any opinion upon the domestic policy of another country, but it may be that to-day's event which is taking place in the United States may indicate a change of policy that may bring opposite results. In the meantime we are on the eve of the World Economic Conference, summoned, be it remembered, by the League of Nations, but on the initiative of this country and the United States, and therefore enlisting the full co-operation of the American people and Government. We have learnt now to regard nations as units, but we have still not fully learnt in these economic matters to regard the world as a unit. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Macmillan) made a thoughtful speech a few days ago in this Debate in which he dwelt upon the necessity for world planning and viewing its problems as a whole. The World Economic Conference gives us the opportunity to do that very thing, an unequalled opportunity, and we earnestly trust—and I am sure that it is the desire of the whole House—that that opportunity will be taken to achieve definite results in the sphere of tariffs and other restrictions, monetary questions and other matters which are of world wide importance, for by this means, and by this means only, are we likely to secure an early restoration of prosperity and an end of the unemployment difficulty which faces us all in these days.
Meanwhile the Experts Committee of the League of Nations has been meeting in order to prepare the work of the World Economic Conference. We all know what they will say, or one of the chief things they will say. They will say, what every international conference and committee—and there have been many of them—has said unanimously throughout the last five years, that the restrictions upon world commerce, tariffs, quotas and exchange restrictions, are mainly responsible for the present state of the world. But unhappily the countries pay little attention to the reiterated opinions of every one of those bodies whenever they have met. Each country, owing to its immediate problems—the hon. Member for Brent-ford (Mr. Mitchell) said that some foreign
factory had been put up in his constituency, and that "it is admirable; let us have more tariffs and so attract foreign firms, and all will be well"—always says "The international advice is sound if all the world would follow it. That should be the rule, but we in this particular country"—(whatever the country may be)—"must make a temporary exception in view of our exceptional local circumstances." So that while invariably the delegates at the conferences recognise interdependence and pass resolutions in favour of freer trade, the Parliaments at home, all of them, pass legislation imposing greater restrictions. Unfortunately it is not the resolutions that matter but the legislation.
This Parliament has in recent months been more engaged probably than any other in the world in doing these things. While hon. Members here, discussing the problem as a whole, see the necessity of freeing the channels of world trade, upstairs in the Committee rooms Members meet in scores and even in hundreds pressing the Government to impose in every direction fresh quotas, fresh tariffs and fresh restrictions. The conclusion, therefore, is that we should endeavour to use the opportunity of the World Economic Conference to secure a measure of simultaneity in the removal of restrictions. We all hold that you cannot secure a measure of disarmament by unilateral action alone. It must be simultaneous and international. And so, many Members hold that you must secure, not unilateral, but simultaneous action in bringing about reductions of tariffs and of restrictions.
Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues endeavour as far as they can, the scope being somewhat limited by the Ottawa Agreements, to do what in them lies to secure this result on that occasion. But it will be necessary, in my view, that before entering the World Economic Conference they should definitely make up their minds what policy they are going to pursue, with regard especially to the mostfavoured-nation-clause in the commercial treaties. For that is really the governing question in dealing with the possibility of securing regional agreements, or agreements among various selected groups of nations for a reduction of tariffs and of quota restrictions. I agree wholly with Sir Walter Layton that it will be
useless to attempt to deal with treaties as a whole unless, first, you decide whether the most-favoured-nation-clause in treaties should be supplemented by an equal-treatment-clause permitting partial arrangements to be made for Free Trade or freer trade among particular groups and nations.
That is the first and foremost of the proposals. The House should impress upon the Government that the World Economic Conference should be used as an occasion for making headway against the economic nationalism which is now ruining the world, to get rid of restrictions, to solve finally the problem of War debts and to deal with the monetary causes of the depression which have been discussed so fully already this afternoon. Furthermore, if the Disarmament Conference at Geneva could simultaneously be brought to a successful conclusion, and if we could obtain a striking success there, I think that it would go very far to encourage the whole world to progress into a better economic condition. If there could be also a European détente, such as M. Herriot is working for in the relations between France and Italy with great wisdom, courage and foresight, if there could be a political détente between the various Powers among whom there has been friction hitherto—that also would have results in the economic sphere—it would help to solve the difficulties from which we are suffering. These are the most important points the House can discuss on a Debate on unemployment. Other means may be useful, but by comparison they are insignificant.
Secondly, there is the question of our own financial policy. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he speaks this evening will tell us—I have no doubt he will—something on that matter. Nothing can be worse in the interests of the unemployed than to take any action which would upset our financial stability again. To maintain the stability of the pound, to adopt any currency changes with the utmost care so that it should not shake financial confidence, to abstain from borrowing from the Unemployment Fund, to impose no increase in the dead-weight burden of the rates and taxes—those must be the prior conditions of any action taken for national
development or for any other purpose. Such suggestions as those published to-day in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment would be likely to lead this country to sheer disaster. We were nearly drowned in a financial morass a year and a quarter ago. We have struggled out, and our first care must be not to be pushed back into it again.
5.30 p.m.
Subject to that one overriding consideration, I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the time has now come to re-examine the possibility of remunerative investment of the capital now lying idle. In this matter we have been passing through three stages. In the first place, in the time of the previous Labour Government, the policy was adopted of spending freely on development, and not on useless work—I personally object to the use of the term "relief works"; they were not relief works—but upon works of development., without examining very closely whether they involved a direct financial loss or how great that loss might be. Next, after the crisis in the summer of last year, we came to a, second stage when it was realised how great was the danger of borrowing large sums of money. The money market, and the credit of the Government, were at such a point that it was dispensable to cut off borrowing, and it was done suddenly as with a knife. Perhaps it was done too completely, but still the restriction had to be carried out at that time. Now we are entering into what may prove to be the third stage. As a result of the restoration of the national credit, through the restriction of new issues, and through the stagnation of trade, money has become very cheap and the rate of Government borrowing has been reduced from 5 per cent, to 3 per cent. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the policy of the Government might now recognise that we have passed through the second stage and are now emerging into the third stage, and that the use of capital might be made a great deal more free than it has been during the last few months. The application of this principle is a matter of detail, but there is a definite issue of principle to be decided by and properly discussed in this House. The House should make its opinion heard that there should be freedom for the money
market to assist private enterprises and, further, that State activity, so far from being discouraged, should be encouraged, providing it involves no financial loss or no serious loss more than balancing the immediate advantage gained by taking people off the unemployment register.
The Debate has shown that there is a great body of opinion in the House that desires the question of housing to be considered afresh. With money on a 3½ per cent. basis instead of a 5 per cent. basis, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), an ex-Minister of Health, told us that that makes such a difference in housing as would enable houses to be let at from 2s. 6d. to 4s. per week cheaper than has previously been the case. It should also be possible under present conditions largely to reduce building costs. I would strongly urge the Government to reexamine afresh the whole of this problem and to see whether a great housing development movement cannot be set on foot, not only without loss but with a real gain in national equipment from the point of view of the housing of the working classes and also from the point of view of a reduction in the numbers on the unemployment register.
Thirdly, trade depends on the efficiency of our industries, and upon the low cost of production, and it appears to me to be the height of folly—I do not want to refer to fiscal disputes—at this time, of all times, to put taxes upon the raw material of manufactures imported into this country. Further, it is necessary to promote the reorganisation of our industries. We were told that the iron and steel industries were to have protection only for six months and that it would not be continued unless they reorganised themselves. They have in fact done nothing except to form a combination to keep up prices, and yet the Import Duties Advisory Committee are extending the protection for a period of two years. That is exceedingly disappointing. Fourthly, there is the great problem of agriculture, which was so fully debated yesterday. We have not yet had time to study the meat restriction scheme which the Minister of Agriculture announced last night but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said this afternoon, it has -been remarkable how the schemes of restric-
tion of supplies have failed—rubber, coffee, sugar, oil; they have all failed. It appears to be necessary, if these schemes are to succeed to control all the world-wide operations from production right up to the retail sale, before we can be sure of success. Meanwhile, if the Government take the responsibility, as they do under these measures, to secure that the price of meat shall not be too low for the producer, they also take the responsibility for ensuring that it shall not be too high for the consumer.
A further proposal which has been under discussion is in relation to smallholdings. We had an eloquent and indeed a passionate speech from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) pleading strongly for the settlement of smallholders. I am absolutely convinced that my right hon. Friend is fundamentally right in his advocacy of that cause. In Denmark, Belgium and Holland they have large numbers of peasant cultivators, who prosper and succeed without any tariffs. Those countries are Free Trade or quasi Free Trade countries. In his opening speech the Leader of the Opposition said that what was wanted in this country was to adopt the Danish system, which has brought that prosperity to Denmark. That statement was received with cheers from all quarters of the House. There is unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of that course. My memory goes back 40 years, when I was a candidate in an agricultural constituency. Then everyone who was interested in agricultural politics advocated the adoption in this country of the Danish system. Everyone has been advocating it ever since. One could make a collection of hundreds and thousands of pamphlets and articles which for a whole generation have been urging upon British agriculture the example of Denmark and the desirability of adopting the same method, but very little has been done, and the present plight of British agriculture is mainly or largely owing to that fact.
Such smallholdings as there are, a few thousands of them, are succeeding better than the large farms. A report was published only a few days ago, which may be seen in the Library, from the Land Department of the Ministry of Agriculture for 1931. That report says:
From reports received from the Ministry's Land Commissioners it is apparent
that, generally speaking, smallholders are so far weathering the present agricultural depression in a remarkable way and that in all parts of the country they have been doing better than the large farmers.
That is an independent and impartial report from a Government Department. They go on to say:
It is true that if the present low prices continue much longer there are indications in several parts of the country that the smallholders will be severely tried.
But that statement does not alter the fact that at the present time the smallholdings have stood the test of this most grave depression better than the large farms. It should be easier now to secure land settlement, since land, buildings, and capital are all much cheaper than they have been in former years. I should like to ask the Government whether any action has been taken to carry vigorously into effect the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act which was passed in the late Parliament? On that the Minister of Agriculture said nothing last night.
These are the main proposals which we would advance in relation to the present situation. They touch the causes of unemployment and the means of getting people into ordinary work rather than the suggestions that have been made from many quarters for finding temporary occupations for those unfortunate people who are out of work. That, however, is by no means unimportant. We heard much at the general election of the "doctor's mandate." A doctor in treating his patient would be a very poor adviser if he dealt only with the symptoms of the illness and did not try to reach and to cure its causes. Infinitely more important is the cure of the causes than the treatment of the symptoms. At the same time, it is always a doctor's duty to relieve or assuage painful symptoms while the more fundamental cure is being effected. So it is in regard to unemployment.
The figures that w ere published to-day show that nearly half a million, 480,000, of the unemployed have been out of work for a year or more. It is true that the individuals who form part of these vast statistics change. People go into employment and go out of it again. Therefore, it would be untrue to say that the whole body has been continuously unemployed, but it is a tragic fact that close upon half a million people, an enormous total, for a whole year have been in complete idle-
ness, and many of them for much longer than one year. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir Francis Acland) in a very powerful speech yesterday pleaded strongly, from his own personal knowledge, the value of the allotment movement and other similar movements for finding temporary employment. He also referred to what is being done in Germany, along other lines, not only in relation to allotments but other industries.
I would suggest respectfully to hon. Members that if they have an opportunity they should read the very informative article which appeared in the "Times" of 24th October, which showed how actively this matter had been taken up in Germany and how very far ahead they are of this country in the matter. They have adopted all over the country great numbers of schemes of employment which do not encroach upon the ordinary labour market, finding work which could not be done at ordinary rates and supplying commodities for consumers who have not the money to buy similar commodities, if there were any, in the shops. I suggest to the Government that they should give very special attention to this matter and, if necessary, appoint a special committee to deal with it, that they should give guidance to the municipalities who may be called in to assist and also to voluntary organisations, and that they should speedily present to Parliament and the nation a special report upon this aspect of the matter arid indicate the lines on which it might proceed. It is a question not only of financial profit and loss but also of human profit and loss, for the demoralisation which is taking place is a grave national danger. But let me urge strongly that it would be a profound error for this House or the country to concentrate upon temporary measures. They should never be diverted by relieving the symptoms from trying to discover the cause and to apply a cure.
We have been for three days engaged on a survey of the whole problem. When one reads the records of Parliament one finds that frequently in earlier centuries the House of Commons, when it was impressed by grave conditions in the country, would resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Nation. We have been endeavouring to act as such a committee during the past few days. It is for us to deliberate
on these matters and to suggest, to urge, and even insist, but the Government are the executive committee of the House of Commons and it is for them and not for us to act. I can summarise what I have said, in the following definite suggestions, in which I am sure a large number of hon. Members will concur, some of which have already been made by hon. Members. First, and most important, I suggest that the opportunity should be seized at the World Economic Conference to arrive at definite results in removing the restrictions on trade, dealing with the mostfavoured-nation clause by common agreement, in solving the question of international debts, and in trying to arrive at a solution by common agreement of the monetary problem; (2), that the Government should remove wholly the restrictions on the use of capital for private enterprises, and should encourage State enterprises which do not involve a dead weight burden upon rates and taxes and particularly, if it is found feasible, in relation to housing; (3), that they should not relax' the pressure upon our great industries, particularly iron and steel, to secure efficient reorganisation; (4), that every endeavour should be made to increase the number of smallholdings rapidly in all suitable parts of the country, and to carry out the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act which was passed by the late Parliament; (5), that they should promote an extension of temporary occupations for the unemployed, especially on allotments and in other ways such as those adopted in Germany and elsewhere.
In such a policy there is hope, there is vision. Where there is no vision the people perish. Some people have suggested that we are here as an impotent Government with a bewildered Parliament in the presence of a suffering and disillusioned nation. It need not be so. The House and the Government should join together and say to the people: "We know what needs to be done, and we are resolved to accomplish it."

Mr. McGOVERN: I have listened during the last few days to many speeches in this House in connection with the unemployment problem, and I must confess that I am not surprised that the country is in the deplorable state it is to-day. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir
H. Samuel) has delivered a very nice oratorical speech and has tried to show how with a little reform here and there the present system of society can be carried on, but he wants nothing to be done in any shape or form which will endanger the present order. We can take that from his statement in connection with the "dole" report. It is easy for the man who, if he had the power, could consume a thousand dinners during the day to tell us that as a nation we cannot afford one decent dinner per day to the individual who is unemployed. But the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is much concerned about the gold and silver standard and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) proceeded to congratulate him here and there, and then to administer rebukes; to put him on the right road where he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. I am satisfied that if Mr. Montagu Norman does not know where he is as the Governor of the Bank of England we should replace him by the right hon. Member for Hillhead or the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The nation is suffering in not having the ability of these men transferred to the Bank of England. I am not interested in the gold and silver standard, I am interested in the bread and butter standard of the working classes.
I listened to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday and really it was the greatest wet blanket that was ever applied by any leader of any country in any part of the world. I have read that his doctors have been consulting him as to whether they should order him to bed. I think they should have ordered him to bed before he made that speech, because he was not in the mental and physical condition to appear in this House as the leader of a National Government which is going to solve the unemployment problem. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was thinking aloud. I can assure him that there is no danger even if he happens to think aloud in his dreams, because he will not give anything away to those who may be in the room. I watched the faces of the supporters of the National Government, those spirited colts who came here 13 months ago ready to jump the national economic hurdles and bring prosperity to the nation. They
came here with the spirit to do something to justify their expenditure in the constituencies, and in the eyes of the people who have entrusted them with power. But I could see first a look of amazement which later on developed into despair as the Prime Minister went on with his speech. In fact his speech was a statement that it was no use doing anything at all, that the position was hopeless, and that we had, like Mr. Micawber, to wait for something to turn up.
That has always been the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. He differentiated between public works, what he called relief works, and employment of a normal economic character. He tried to get the cheers of his supporters by pointing out that we had to wait for the ordinary normal flow and development of trade as the only means of finding employment for the people of this country. Afterwards he told us one or two interesting things. He said that the Labour Government worked hard to produce works of public assistance. That was the time for praising the Labour Government. The other day, as the "Daily Express" pointed out, he was engaged in administering body blows to himself all the time, knocking himself all round the ring. At the moment he is determined to praise Ramsay during these discussions. It is said that for every £1,000,000 spent in providing work only 4,000 men are engaged, but later on, because of mechanical appliances, that number was seriously reduced, and it is estimated in some quarters that only 2,000 men are employed for every £1,000,000 spent.
One can understand the difference between relief work, as the Prime Minister terms it, and employment of a normal economic character. I am not in favour of engaging men to make roads simply because you regard it as a disaster for them to be idle. If you are going to spend money I am anxious to see it spent in giving maintenance of a decent character to these men to the extent of keeping them idle rather than putting them to the making of roads for which there is no demand. I have heard complaints from some of the hunger marchers that the roads were not too good. If your system is going to continue I would suggest you should put the roads in a better state because the numbers of un-
employed and hunger marchers will be constantly growing and they will have a better and easier access to London if you provide them with better roads.
This Debate has been somewhat useful in the sense that it has provided a medium whereby those who are in disagreement with the Government on its monetary policy and its agricultural policy can discuss the actions of the Government without the obligation of having to vote against them. In that regard the Debate has been useful, but I am satisfied that these three days' discussion will not fill the empty stomach of a single unemployed man. The Members of the National Government applauded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pinhead to-day when he spoke about our monetary policy. The attitude of hon. Members opposite reminds me of the successful business roan who had no very great musical taste. On the invitation of his family he went to the opera. He thought it right, being a successful business man, that he should go to the opera. After the singers had finished he applauded and cheered because he thought it was the right thing to do. He knew nothing about the music, he did not know whether it was good or bad, but he thought it was his duty to cheer. And hon. Members opposite think it right and are prepared to cheer the right hon. Member for Hill-head when they know very little about the monetary system in any shape or form. There is a story told of a man on the Glasgow Town Council who, when it was suggested that in order to beautify the River Kelvin they should have one or two gondolas, said, "Yes, I am in favour of anything to beautify the place. We could have a dozen of these gondolas, and allow them to breed." That is the type of mind of a large section of the people in this House.
The Socialist point of view has not been put at all during this Debate. Many reforms have been suggested as to how the present economic system can be made to carry on, how it can be made tolerable, and certain schemes have been suggested in order to satisfy the people. You are not going to satisfy the people by these schemes nor are you going to assist the continuance of the present order. Some people talk about the monetary system and some about the World Economic Conference. There is
only one world conference which can be of any effect, and that is one which would transfer the ownership of the means of life from the few people who now own it into the hands of the whole people. That is the only method which will give any reasonable chance of an ordered world. The man out of employment cannot get work because there is a glut. He cannot get wages because he has no work. He has no money to buy goods and, therefore, the employer cannot employ him because he cannot get rid of his surplus goods. Here is a world glutted with a surplus of goods and the workers who require these goods cannot get them because they have not the purchasing power. And they have not the purchasing power because they have no employment. You go round in a circle, and that is the inevitable result of the present order of society.
6.0 p.m.
It is no good trying to make the country believe that you have the power to solve the problem. Instead of people going out to Egypt to look for mummies, and things like King Tot's tomb, they should come to this House where they will find a big enough collection of mummies and corpses without going any further. There is an army of living dead men in this House; men who from the neck up are in cold storage. They came down to the Labour benches and try to make us believe that they are going to solve the problem. It is really wonderful the ideas which spring from them when they are out of office; it is amazing the ideas which they develop. I am absolutely amazed at them. The late Lord Privy Seal suggested in his newspaper last week that one method of dealing with the situation is to develop the national estate for tourist and travel and health purposes, to erect guest-houses with sleeping accommodation and good food, to open the angling lochs and rivers, to cut out the penal charges that drive American tourists to Germany and France and Italy. We have reached a fine stage when the best that the Socialist movement can suggest is that we must make Scotland suitable for the parasites who are living on the ill-paid labour of the worker in America. There is nothing said about getting the tourists off our backs, nothing about getting the dead weight
off the backs of the working classes. If there were a transfer of real power into the hands of the common people, if ownership and control were in the hands of all mankind instead of in the hands of the few, if every person were contributing in some way to a decent society, something could be done. I as a member of the building trade could then go back to the building trade, from a dishonest livelihood to an honest livelihood. So also many Members of this House could go back to the bench and take part in their ordinary trades and callings.
Hon. Members talk here—endless talk with no intention of doing anything, every party playing its part in the game of humbug and hypocrisy that is going on. The Liberal party tell you to adopt the Yellow Book, the Labour party say that you should adopt, "Labour and the Nation." But when the Labour party got to the Government side of the House they hid "Labour and the Nation," and put it into a safe until votes were required from the working classes at the next election. The Tory party have been at least honest in this; they have carried out their policy of tariffs. I make no complaint about that. The country approved of their tariffs. Yes, but what the Tories did was to protect the interests of the people who are immediately concerned and to attack the interests of the working classes who put, the Government in office.
I am satisfied that no good result will come from this Debate. It is not our job, it is the Government's job to try to find a solution of the unemployment problem. The Government cannot find a solution. So long as the present order of society goes on they are going to have the job. I am not in favour of any other persons coming along and attempting to make the country believe that if they had the opportunity they would deal better with the capitalist system than the capitalists themselves are dealing with it. I am not going to admit that the Labour party can do the capitalist job better than the capitalists themselves. I want to see the country completely rid of the private ownership of the means of life. We must go on propagating and stimulating thought and activity in the country. Our aim must be not to transfer another political party to the other side of the House so that it can get the plums,
but to see that working-class energy is used for uplifting the common people by concerted, intelligent and reasonable action. I am convinced that the transfer of ownership from private to public hands is the only means of ending the unemployment which is keeping the people in poverty. We shall not achieve anything by tempering with the problem and carrying on our work in the spirit of make-believe, or by telling the people that there will be an end of their sufferings if they merely transfer power from one party to another.

M. LOGAN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has no doubt an honest plan, but I would have been better satisfied if he had not taken five minutes of my time. I remember the end of a tragedy on Thursday last, the passing of Free Trade and the curtain being rolled up on a new system. Our three days' truce is coming to an end. The truce may have been useful; I do not know. Candidly I have no faith in it. But still there have been professions of faith on both sides of the House. The power lies with the Government. We have to wait and see whether they will do anything regarding what has been said in these Debates. I hope they will do something for the nation, because I am convinced that if this so-called National Government does nothing as a result of these deliberations people outside will have no time for any form of Government whatever. I am convinced of that from what I hear among the people I have met. Discussions on bimetallism or the purchasing power of silver in India, or the Gold Standard, are a. complete waste of time in our present position. The Motion before the House says:
That this House views with concern the present volume of unemployment and will welcome all proper measures for dealing with it.
That resolution means something immediate, and "immediate" means now, something that can be put into operation without any Acts of Parliament. I had occasion to speak in this House a few months ago on the subject of shipping. It is very remarkable that nearly a day has been given to the question of agriculture, and that the questions of shipping and engineering and coal, important factors in the country, have received very little attention. One would imagine that
the House was unaware that these problems remained to be dealt with. I remember well that when I sat on the Government side of the House, and when the Labour Government were in office on sufferance, we were told that we had done nothing, and that the salvation of the country would certainly come about if a Tory or National Government got into power. Hon. Members opposite are now in power. They have been in office over 12 months. Yet the nation to-day is hearing the same parrot cries as were heard when the Labour party were in office.
I hold no brief for any party that sells the people. I am here to represent a constituency with a certain demand. Whether it be a Liberal party, a Tory party or a Labour party, if it goes back on its promises to the people I have no time for it. I come here in pure honesty to represent the people with whom I am associated. I am glad of the three days' truce if it should mean that honesty of expression will earn attention. I claim no indulgence far asking the National party to consider what they are going to do, if they are as anxious as they profess to be for the future of the country from an Imperial standpoint. We are told that they are anxious to keep the British Empire intact, that they want trade within the Empire to develop, and that they want to bring about a unity that will add prestige to the name of the British. If that is their intention, by action rather than by speech they must implement their word.
I ask them, what are they going to do with British shipping? The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) told me the other day that if I went to the south of England I would see glasshouses springing up as a result of tariffs. My reply to him is that if he went to the north of England he would see grass growing in the engineering works, he would see desolation and ruin in the industrial centres. We have heard about the foreigner stepping in and about the necessity for Protection here. There are in this House shipowners who boast of the British Empire, and who to-day are carrying aliens, foreigners, on their ships. I ask the Government, when are they going to deal with the question of shipping? When are they going to deal with the blacks, the Lascars, the aliens who are taking the places of British seamen on British ships? These British
seamen are men who went out to the War, who faced the terrors of the deep. They are now standing at the street corners, workless.
I am out for the protection of the British race. It is a tragedy to me to walk along the streets of our great seaports and to see the men who risked their lives on the sea during the War no longer wanted because cheap labour is preferred, because curry and rice takes the place of roast beef and plum pudding, and because we cannot bring the Britisher down to a curry and rice diet. It is abominable outrage in this nation. I know thousands of men who gave all but their lives for the freedom of this country. It is despicable that hon. Members can sit in this House and be roused to enthusiam by dissertations on bimetallism and the Gold Standard, but can show no enthusiasm when the question of human life is under consideration. In all seriousness I ask the House for once to take into consideration British supremacy on the seas, to consider the case of those who fought at sea for the name of Britain. No better spirited or greater men ever sailed the seven seas. Let the Government get back to reality and give these men a right to a livelihood on ships that fly the British flag. If that be done there will have been something in the three days' truce that we have had. But if at the end of this truce we are going to have only words and not deeds, then, I am afraid the House of Commons is worth very little and all we have heard is only specious arguments. National rejuvenation can never be brought about unless we have a contented people and it is on that ground that I ask the Government, in all honesty and sincerity, to remember the British seamen and to see what can be done to better the conditions of a class which has done so much for the British race.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: In attempting to sum up this discussion from the point of view which we hold, I do not propose to go into the questions of bimetallism which have been spoken of this afternoon, nor to enter upon any analysis of the present world situation such as was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). But I may make one criticism upon that analysis which is,
perhaps, pertinent. The right hon. Gentleman traced all our troubles to the American collapse of 1928 and 1929, but he must have overlooked the fact that, prior to that date, we had already for many years had a large accumulation of unemployed and we had been entirely unable to get rid of the problem. It is not right therefore that we should regard this problem as one which has arisen solely out of the international and American situations. We must regard it also a domestic problem.
The object of this Debate was that various Members of the House might suggest to the Government methods for assisting the unemployed, more particularly in the coming months of this winter and that avenues of suggestion might be opened up, without any fear of the consequences—even to the Government's own supporters—of criticising His Majesty's Government. This Debate places a grave responsibility upon the Government. They are the people who have to act, if action is to be taken. The House of Commons has attempted to lay before the Government all those suggestions which they think might be fertile of immediate assistance to the unemployed. Now that those suggestions have been offered, it will be for the Government to consider them and to take the responsibility of saying "Aye" or "No" as to whether any of them shall be carried into effect. Hon. Members all have their different views on what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen called the cure of the disease. We believe and always have believed that the cure must be a fundamental one; that it must be one which will, eventually and effectively, eliminate the element of private profit-owning in the production of commodities. It would be unprofitable for me to go into that question tonight however, and I desire for the present, to proceed on the basis of the facts as they are to-day—that we find ourselves with a capitalist system, with tariffs and with a Government which has a vast majority, great power and, it is alleged, great prestige. Great power and great prestige bring with them great responsibilities and great possibilities of doing things which other Governments might possibly be afraid to do.
Much has been said about the World Economic Conference. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen and the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) as to the vast importance of that Conference and also the vast importance of the British Government having some definite objective in that Conference. I do not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply to-night is going to dwell upon that subject and I do not propose to deal with it in detail, because I believe that, however much our economic situation is bound up with that of other countries—as it must be—we are still able to do something at least to assist our unemployed, within our own competence, and without coming to arrangements with other countries to that end. I wish to suggest, mostly by way of summing up what has already been said, some means by which those 3,000,000 people who are to-day looking to this House for their salvation may get some message of hope before they have to pass through the very terrible time which is before them this winter.
We cannot weigh up this problem in pounds, shillings and pence. Far greater and deeper questions are raised than mere questions of finance. However difficult the question of finance may be, there is something far deeper and more serious in the situation which meets us than the issue of whether this or that, is profitable or not. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) gave us a dramatic and effective description of the moral dissolution which is taking place all over the country among the unemployed, especially in those areas where the hope of employment has almost died out. In great areas like South Wales and Durham we have village after village in which, apparently, there is no prospect of the ordinary wheels of industry revolving and bringing these men back to employment again. No doubt we would all agree that, if it were possible, the healthiest and best way of reabsorbing the unemployed is to reabsorb them into the normal industries of the country. The picture which has been drawn by the Prime Minister must convince us, however, that, anyhow for a year or two, there is no possibility whatsoever of that reabsorption.
If that be so, are we to take up the attitude, that, with no possibility of the reabsorption of the unemployed in the ordinary channels of trade, we are to stand by and say to the unemployed,
"You must wait"; or, are we to say, "This is a, great Government with great prestige and we are coining to your assistance even though it may cost the country something to do so. We do not look upon you merely as so many pawns in a financial game. We look upon you as human flesh and blood who must be saved even at a cost." I feel certain that every Member of the House were he asked to consider this matter from his own private point of view, would be prepared to make the greatest personal sacrifices to that end. Cannot we bring the same element of willingness to sacrifice into the deliberations of the House and the determination of the Government—because it is only the Government who can act on behalf of the nation. They alone can transmute the sympathy of the nation into action which will help the unemployed. The idea that it can be done by voluntary societies, good though that work may be, is, in view of the vastness of the problem, an obviously wrong idea. This is a problem which must be tackled by means of the whole national organisation and the whole national force, if it is to be tackled at all.
The suggestions which have been put forward fall roughly under three main heads—first, the undertaking of public works; second, the stimulation of private enterprise, and, third, agriculture and land development. I wish to deal with these three, and then to deal with the fundamental financial question which lies behind all forms of Government assistance. The general position so far as the unemployed are concerned is that the problem is one of industrial unemployment. We heard a great deal yesterday about the agricultural situation and everybody must realise the extreme necessity of taking steps to prevent the agricultural situation getting any worse and to remedy it if we can. But the problem of the 3,000,000 people with whom we are immediately concerned, is not one mainly of agricultural unemployment, but of industrial unemployment. The problem for the moment is that of dealing with the people in particular industries, if we can, through those industries, instead of trying to force them out of their industries on to some other work—to try to provide them with some work which will maintain their artisanship, to give them both employment and hope.
6.30 p.m.
Many long-term methods of dealing with this problem have been suggested, such as a higher age in education, a lower age for pensions, stopping pensioners working in industry, shorter hours—to remedy the position in which one portion of the population is working long hours while others are idle—a redistribution of leisure and work, and so on. These are things which, though they are essential in our view, are not so easily or rapidly applied as remedies to the immediate situation. Let me come to the question of public works. This is not a question, in our view, of relief work at all. There is a vast quantity of work undone in this country the necessity for which is urgent. First there is the question of the resumption of the normal work of local authorities. Last October, as everybody knows, that work was shut down to a great extent and, even in order to preserve normal progress, or the normal maintenance of properties by local authorities, a great deal more work must be done than is being done at present. That alone would find a field for many persons, especially in the building trade. Then there are still in this country large accumulated arrears of work which are acknowledged by everybody to be urgent. There is the slum clearance problem and the housing problem. It is admitted on every side that that is work which, some day, must be done. One turns to another area, that of land drainage. Royal Commissions have sat, and we have experienced in the last two years some of the most terrible flooding, due to lack of land drainage, with millions of pounds lost as a result. Nobody can say that that is not work that requires urgently doing in the national interest. That is not relief work, but it is arrears of work, a great deal of which should have been done years ago. In those circumstances, what better time than the present could there be for doing such work? Credit is cheap, materials are cheap, labour is abundant and cheap. What better time than the moment to do essential national work? The right hon. Member for Hillhead made a suggestion that money should be put up or guaranteed by the Government to build a Cunarder. I cannot understand the argument by which it is said that building houses, which admittedly are re-
quired, by national expenditure is a waste of money, while it is desirable to advance money to build a Cunarder.
Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with this: If it is desirable for private enterprise at this moment to build houses, as it has been said it is, it is just as desirable for municipalities to build houses. It does not matter two pins whether the bricklayer is employed by a contractor who is working for private enterprise or by a contractor who is working for a municipality. It can make no difference. Yet it is said, "We must economise; we must not spend money on municipal housing," but private persons are urged to spend, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is going to tell us that money spent by private persons is well spent, but money spent on the same objects by municipalities is ill-spent, will explain to us how that comes about, because we believe that there is no time more opportune in the interests of the country for launching a large housing and slum clearance campaign than the present moment.
There are other matters as well, but I will not go through the whole category of them. The Government know them; they have been before them; the plans for them are in the various Ministries; the work is ready to hand, as, for instance, the land drainage schemes. Then there is what I might call an intermediate class of work. One was instanced—I will take it as an example—by the Prime Minister in his speech, namely, the question of the hydrogenisation of coal. That is a matter which has been under discussion by the Government for years. It is a matter which has passed the experimental stage and could be put on a commercial experimental stage immediately, and it is a matter which involves the most tremendous issues for this country. If that industry could be established as a result of commercial experiment, it would give hope again to the miners of England, and surely that is a matter, where you have these vast stagnant populations, that is well worth while.
One of the most important things to notice in those areas is that during the last few months the movement of labour out of those areas has almost entirely ceased. Even a, year ago there was still
a small movement out of those areas, a movement which was perhaps just sufficient to give those who remained the hope that one day they might get a job, but that has stopped. They are absolutely stagnant, and the hydrogenisation of coal is perhaps the one suggestion which can be made bringing hope to those areas. During the War, when we were anxious to make engines of destruction, we started out to build plant which bad never before been built in the world. Nobody knew whether or not it would work, and we spent millions of pounds on it as an experiment. Surely, in a matter of this gravity, in an issue which is so important to this country, from the point of view both of the coal areas and of the country as an importing unit for petrol, it is worth bringing to a quick conclusion and coming to a quick determination upon the matter of starting this industry upon its feet.
So much for public works. The Prime Minister said that such stimulation as we could give should be given, but through the ordinary trade channels. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apart from the question of tariffs, What is being done to stimulate industry in the ordinary trade channels? What is being done as regards the reorganisation of the basic industries? He himself has within the last few days pointed to the necessity of some measure of reorganisation in one or more of our great basic industries. Everybody admits the necessity, everybody has preached the necessity for the last 10 years, and absolutely nothing has been done. The House will remember that there have been committees, inquiries, reports, all of them recommending that some action should be taken by the industry itself or in some other way, but those industries have done nothing. They have been unable to agree. They say either that they cannot get together or that they cannot get the money with which to reorganise. Whichever it may be, in our view it is the duty of the Government to seize this opportunity for assisting or bringing about those reorganisations. Again, the moment is the most opportune you could have. If reorganisation has to take place, as it has, what better time than when money is cheap, materials are cheap, and labour is abundant and cheap, and what better time, from the national point of view,
than when you may save the nation a heavy charge as regards unemployment benefit?
There are other ways besides of stimulating private enterprise. The right hon. Member for Hillhead mentioned the restoration of the Trade Facilities Committee, a restoration which we think would be extremely advantageous. Another means of giving industry the support of the Government is in essential schemes of reorganisation or in essential schemes for rebuilding. An hon. Member mentioned expediting the building of tramp steamers—exactly the sort of problem that was dealt with by the Trade Facilities Committee, and exactly the sort of thing that might give assistance in one of the most depressed areas in the whole country. Then there are export credits. Is it not possible, at a time when it is more than ever essential to stimulate the export trade, because of the dangers that may beset it, for the Government to give some greater measure of export credit, not regarding it purely as a matter out of which the Government must make money, but as an essential feature in the stimulation of private enterprise, which stimulation will assist the Government by reducing unemployment benefit?
If the Government believe, as they do, that the salvation of this country has to come through private enterprise, then surely they must logically adopt some of these methods of assisting private enterprise. We believe, of course, that salvation will come along another line, but if this assistance is given, it is essential, as many hon. Members have already remarked, that that assistance should be upon a planned and considered basis, not haphazard here and there, doing in some cases perhaps more harm than good, as was done, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, with regard to certain shipbuilding schemes under the Trade Facilities Act. But it is no good waiting for the stimulation of private enterprise by tariffs, which it is admitted, however successful they are going to be, can have no reaction upon industry for a considerable time.
I want to say only one word upon the agricultural situation. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture yesterday handed out a bouquet to the agricultural industry. That may assist agricultural, but it will not assist indus-
trial unemployment. The object is to increase the price of meat. If it increases the price of meat by 2d. a lb., which is half what is hoped for, some £7,000,000 a year will be paid by the consumers in increased prices. Let us hope that that £7,000,000 will go to agriculture, in addition to the £6,000,000 which they have had already under the wheat subsidy and the many millions under the beet subsidy. But those hon. Members who yesterday said that the industries and agriculture must pull together, and that the country must be looked at as a whole, must remember that if people are to be asked to give large sums of money to assist agriculture in this country, the unemployed in the industrial areas are entitled to say, "May we not have any money to assist public works, to assist us? Is all the money that is to be given to go to agriculture? Is it not fair that we too should have the financial assistance of the State?" I put that point, not because I want to raise any issue, but because I want the agricultural Members of the House to bear in mind that every concession which they get from the consumers of this country, by means of quota, or taxation, or anything else, entitles those consumers in industrial areas to ask also for their help when it comes to a question of asking for grants for public works. The question of land settlement was raised, but I have not time to deal with that subject.
I want to turn to the question of the financing of these various suggestions. The present position, as has been said by several Members of the House, is that there is available in the City of London a large amount of unused credit or money. Money is cheap. Everybody admits that it would be desirable if we could utilise that money somehow or other so that it should put men into employment. About that there will be no dispute. We have had the experience in the last few years of industry, for some reason or another, whether it be the expense of money or the unwillingness of people to risk money, being unable to get that money in order to carry through essential schemes of reorganisation. In other words, some of the vital blood of the country is unable to circulate through its veins, and the Government as the doctor must devise some means to bring that money into effective circulation so as to give em-
ployment. If private enterprise will not take up the money and use it, the Government must do it. There is no reason why, if it be desirable that that money should be used and that it should be circulated, the Government should not either by the direct raising of a loan or by guaranteeing approved loans, get the money into circulation. However much credit is increased, unless that is done, and unless people are prepared to take it up and use it, it is no good whatever.
The trouble at the moment is not that there is a shortage of credit. The trouble is that nobody will use it. The right hon. Gentleman will say, perhaps, that that arises from an essential nervousness because people are uncertain of the situation; they feel that they do not know whether it is the right moment. Surely that is precisely where the Government can step in and take the lead. They can step in and say, "This moment is the wise and right moment for this money to be used. Moreover, if people are nervous, we will see that, if it is used upon approved schemes, it will not be lost. In other words, we put our guarantee behind it." The right hon. Gentleman does not like the method of raising a direct loan, but surely it cannot be beyond the competence of man to devise a system by which, when you have a mass of material waiting to be used, a mass of men waiting to be used, a quantity of credits waiting to be used, and a great number of works requiring to be done, to bring all these together and put men into employment? That is the problem, and we beg the Government to take some means, whatever they think the best means, to get this money back into useful circulation.
The problem with which we are dealing is a critical one. It is not a question of saying, "Let us wait for six months or a year when times may be better for spending money or raising loans." Unless something is done by this House of Commons and by this Government with its vast majority to relieve the situation at present existing in the country, people will turn in disgust from Parliamentary government. People will say, "What is the use of sending people to Westminster?" and they will turn possibly to other and less pleasant means of trying to get what they want. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will do something to-
night which may give some measure of hope, even if it be only a small hope, to those 3,000,000 men and women, many of them young girls and young boys, who have at the moment nothing to look forward to, no hope of employment, and who have in many cases already suffered great moral deterioration from a prolonged period of unemployment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): We now reach the termination of a. Debate which, in some respects, I think is unprecedented, at any rate in our recollection; a Debate in which, following the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, the whole House has been invited to make what contribution it felt able to make towards the solution of the most baffling and difficult problem of our generation. The speeches to which I have listened to-day have I think, followed the course pursued in the previous two days, and speakers have with more or less success, endeavoured to suppress any polemical presentation of their views and to give as impartial a character as possible to the suggestions which they put forward. On behalf of the Government, I desire to thank all those who have taken part in the Debate for the spirit in which their speeches have been made, and for the genuine and sincere efforts which they have made to elucidate the problems with which we are faced. If at the end of it all those who naturally are disposed to hold different views upon the way in which we should approach this subject have been unable to convince one another, we may hope, at any rate, that the effect of the Debate has been to carry further different points of view, to indicate how far there is any common ground between us, and, further, to indicate the scope of the suggestions and the proposals which can be put up by Members who have not the responsibility for action.
I have only one matter of disagreement with the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, and that was in his remark that this Debate had placed a great responsibility upon the Government. The responsibility was on the Government before. This Debate has not placed it there. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that nothing can divest the Government of that responsibility, and that the Government must decide in the
event what action they had best take in the interests of the country. I had supposed, from information which came to me through the usual channels, that the discussion to-day would largely turn upon the question of currency and credit. No doubt that was the intention, but man proposes and does not always dispose of the way in which Debates go in this House. As a matter of fact, the discussion has branched off on to more general subjects. Perhaps that may be partly because a good many Members, like the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), feel that the subject of currency, and the question whether we should be on a managed currency or return to the Gold Standard is something rather remote, and that the bearing of those problems has very little direct influence upon the mass of those who are finding themselves without work and are awaiting anxiously for some message of hope. I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect that the country as a whole should get excited about matters which are so abstruse in their nature and so remote from the ordinary life of ordinary people as these problems of high finance and currency; nevertheless, it must be admitted that they may have a very important effect upon things which are of great moment.
7.0 p.m.
Therefore, while I have a certain sympathy with the hon. Member who desired that we should sweep all that on one side and come down to what he would regard as more practical questions, I do not think that the House ought altogether to put away the consideration of these matters because undoubtedly they are the forces which act in ways which, though not exactly visible to all of us, nevertheless produce actual and visible results. I should like, therefore, to devote a few minutes to a consideration of the observations that were addressed to the House earlier in the day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). He made a very interesting speech, as he always does upon this subject. His speech gradually led us us to a definite proposal, which I now want to examine. It is a curious fact that there is no subject upon which those who have given any study to it are more cocksure than this subject of currency. That would be very comforting to those of us who do not profess to be experts if they all said the same thing, but, un-
fortunately, they are by no means unanimous in their views, and in the welter of conflicting views it is difficult for the plain man to make up his mind which is the right gospel. That, of course, does not mean that, because the experts differ, the amateur who has a scheme of his own is necessarily right. In this matter there are more amateurs with ideas on the subject than there are experts. I understand my right hon. Friend's proposition to be based upon the assumption that some of the troubles of the world are caused by an insufficient supply of gold for monetary purposes. Now, as he has said, most people are agreed that, if we are to find a way out of the present difficulties through which all parts of the world are passing, we have got some-how or another to bring about a rise in wholesale commodity prices. That rise may be brought about, as my right hon. Friend suggested, either by a, restriction of the supplies of the commodities, or, alternatively, by an alteration in the amount of monetary gold available. That is the standard by which they are valued. He went on to suggest that, inasmuch as there was a deficiency in the available supply of gold, due to the fact that so much of it had been sterilised by its segregation in the reserve of particular countries, we should seek to supplement this supply of gold by bringing into account another metal, namely silver.
Incidentally my right hon. Friend put forward the view, as he has done on previous occasions, that a rise in the price of silver would very much improve our trade with India and China. I think I may perhaps deal with that last point first. I am not going to be dogmatic on that question, because I find it all very confusing and very difficult to be quite certain that any particular view is the last word on the subject; but I see difficulties in the way of accepting the theory that a rise in the price of silver would increase our trade with India and China. Of course, there is the definite difference between them that China has a silver currency and India has not and, therefore, so far as India is concerned, the theory can only be based upon the supposition that a rise in the value of the hoards of silver in India would enable
India to do a larger trade with this country. As to that, the largest part of the hoards is not in monetary form. The hoards are in the form of ornaments, bracelets and so forth. Further, one must say that in the past India has steadily added to these hoards and that she has not used these hoards as a means of purchasing goods. She has used them for the purpose of establishing a social status and, if you examine such variations in the price of silver as have taken place in recent years, I venture to say you will not be able to find any evidence in the figures of India's imports that she has utilised her hoards of silver, when the price of silver went up, to buy more goods from other countries.
With regard to China, the position is slightly different. China has a silver currency and, of course, it is clear that if silver goes up the value of Chinese currency goes up. It may be said that China's purchasing power goes up, but on the other hand, one has got to remember that China's selling power goes down. Again, in the case of China I have endeavoured to get some figures, and I do not find they bear out the view that change in the value of silver makes a corresponding difference in the value of Chinese imports. For instance, the price of the Chinese tael in 1929 was 2s. 8d. per ounce. In 1930 it had fallen to 1s. 11d., and in 1931 it had further fallen to 1s. 6½d. That was a very considerable fall. As a matter of fact, if one takes account of the difference in value, one finds that the imports into China fell only 10 per cent. in volume between 1929 and 1930, although the value of the tael had fallen by over 27 per cent. and, similarly, for the figures between 1930 and 1931. Without being dogmatic I am not convinced myself that a rise in the price of the value of silver would have this valuable effect upon the trade of Lancashire with China or India.
Let me come to the question of whether an increase in the available stock of gold, or rather an increase in the available stock of metal, either gold or the equivalent of gold in silver, would so increase the available stock of this metal, or its equivalent, as to enable the wholesale prices of commodities to rise throughout the world. One must remember that the available supplies of gold for monetary
purposes have enormously increased. In 1900 they were equivalent to about £1,000,000,000. Now they are £2,500,000,000. They have increased, therefore, two and a-half times in the last 30 years. When you consider the amount of extra gold that would be necessary to make a difference to-day you must consider that extra amount in relation to the available supply of gold in the world. Such discoveries of gold, or such increases in the supplies of gold, as those which took place in the 19th century when the Australian and Californian gold fields were discovered, and the subsequent development of the Rand, produced great effects, but they were great in relation to the then existing supplies of gold. If the supplies of gold are to increase two and a half times every 30 years it is obvious that no productions of gold in the future, even if comparable to those great productions in the past, are going to have a similar effect upon the amount of gold required for monetary purposes. What would be the effect of silver? What amount of silver can we expect to get? I observe that my right hon. Friend put his claim for the advantage of using silver very high indeed. He said that there was no device that you could adopt which would so help our trade and industry as to remonetise silver.

Sir R. HORNE: I did not say, or pretend that it would solve the whole problem or make a permanent change. What I did say was that it would be the quickest in its effect of any proposal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend is quite right. He said it was not a complete solution or a permanent solution, but that there was no device which we could adopt which would so help trade and industry now. I want the House to consider these figures, because they have a bearing upon the effect on my right hon. Friend's proposal. His proposal was that the nations of the world, or the central banks, should agree to accept a certain proportion of silver at a fixed ratio for gold. He suggested that the price should be the market price. If it is to be the market price, everyone will see it is no particular inducement for the hoards to come out of India and China. They did not come out of India when the price was much higher than to-day. They cannot come out of China
because China wants silver for currency—unless silver rises materially in price, and then some silver would come out. If you could raise the price from 1s. 6d., at which it is to-day, to, say, 2s., and supposing you could get by that means, say, 1,000,000,000 ounces of silver—I believe that is an outside figure—to come forward, what will that mean? It will mean an addition of £100,000,000 of gold to the available supplies which are now £2,500,000,000. The thing is too small to have any appreciable effect. And taking 200,000,000 ounces as the annual production, you are not going to add more than.4 per cent. to the existing currency reserves. That seems to me a very great difficulty. I do not see, in view of these figures, how it can be argued that the bringing in of silver to help out gold is, in the present circumstances of the world, going to be any effective help to us. Even supposing we can get, which I cannot suppose we will, an agreement by all the central banks to accept that policy. That being so, I am not very hopeful of assistance from bimetallism in our present difficulties.
I would now like to make some observations upon the further suggestion made by my right hon. Friend, which was repeated in one form or another by other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and, in particular, by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It was put in a slightly different form by different speakers but, I think, I may summarise it by saying that the Government are asked to reconsider in the light of present conditions, in the light of cheap money, abundant money, and abundant labour the prospects of effectively stimulating the ordinary operations of industry by extending facilities in some way, not particularly specified, to remunerative projects. I do not think that the House would expect that the Government should make through my mouth on this occasion a general declaration of a complete policy to deal with this very difficult subject. It would hardly be courteous to those who have put these suggestions before us if we were not to give them that more extended consideration which is necessary before we can finally make up our minds.
That need not prevent me from commenting on one or two of the suggestions put forward and, with regard to this particular one, I would like to say that the Government are not bound by any rigid doctrinaire theory. They have naturally reviewed the efforts that have been made by preceding Governments to stimulate employment by giving State assistance to enterprises of various kinds—through municipal works and through various industrial enterprises in this country, and to traders who are endeavouring to carry on an overseas trade. A review of these efforts has, I think, convinced most of us that it is very easy to waste money in trying to provide employment by inducing authorities or individuals to undertake work which would not be done if it were not that it is a process of finding work to give employment; that a great deal of money has been spent and that the interest on that money is now, and will remain, a burden upon industry for some time to come; that the actual amount of employment at the time was comparatively trifling in view of the total number of the unemployed; and that the number of the unemployed remains the same as, or is even larger than, it was before.
It is, no doubt, the consideration of these facts which has led several speakers to say that there is a measure of agreement throughout the House that the only full, complete and satisfactory solution of this problem of unemployment is to provide an increase of the ordinary operations of trade. The particular class of suggestion which I am considering is, I suppose, a variety of that general consideration—it is the suggestion that the ordinary operations of trade are for some reason or another hanging fire, that the stimulus which is required to start the machine is absent, and that if in some way the stimulus could be given by the Government itself then, when once the start had been made, the machine would continue to run on its own power. Let me say that the Government are not blind to or oblivious of possibilities of that kind, and that if we can find schemes of that sort which are calculated to be remunerative in the sense that they will not be a burden upon industry hereafter, and which are not starting now but which we can start, then, certainly, we shall
give to them our most earnest and serious consideration.
But I think it is necessary to warn the House that, in the nature of things, it is not likely that there can be any large number of schemes of that sort, though there may be some, because, after all, if a thing is a profitable enterprise why on earth is it not going on now? It certainly is not the case that money cannot be obtained for it. As has been pointed out, the money is there, there is plenty of it, it is cheap, and industry can have it if it wants it. If industry is not undertaking the enterprise it must be that industry doubts whether money can be profitably employed, and that is why there is all this money lying idle at the present time. It is of no use to borrow money for extensions of factories or the erection of new ones if people do not know whether they can sell their goods. That is the great trouble at the present time, and therefore I am afraid that in reviewing this field while we may, and I hope we shall, find a certain number of schemes that would justify Government action, we shall find most of them fall into one or two categories: either they are schemes which do not require Government assistance, because they are sound in themselves, or else they are schemes which are not certainly going to command the confidence of the general investor or the industrial public, and in that case it is very doubtful whether they ought to have Government assistance. As to whether there is a real difficulty in obtaining the use of money by enterprises which do not require very large amounts, which I understood my right hon. Friend was suggesting, if there is a lack of the proper machinery to coordinate the money which is there waiting for investment and the enterprise which is waiting for the fertilising capital then, certainly, that is a matter which ought to receive the attention of the Government, if it be a case in which the Government can usefully intervene, and I see no difficulty at all about bringing together those who alone could set up the organisation in question.
When I come back to the main problem, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that we must not look at the question of unemployment from too mechanical a point of view. It is a question of men, women, boys and
girls, who are human beings, and whom we all desire to treat with the humanity and the consideration which we would desire to give to all our fellow countrymen. We must recognise, as was said by the right hon. Member for Darwen, that whilst we in this country, by schemes which we can put forward here, may perhaps be able to find employment or stimulate works which will provide employment for a few thousands here and a few thousands there, we cannot expect that in the immediate future anything we can do is going to, let us say, cut the present figure of unemployment in half. To deal with unemployment on the large scale we have to remove the causes which have brought it about, and those causes are not confined to any one country, but are causes which have arisen over the whole world and operate over the whole world.
Therefore, I think a logical conclusion to be drawn from that consideration is that while we will do all we can to help the unemployed to find employment in the immediate future, and while we have taken and are still taking steps that we think will give stimulus to industry and will increase the normal operations of trade, and thus gradually reduce the numbers of the unemployed, nevertheless we still have to face the fact that there are going to be a large number—a million or more—of persons for whom we cannot expect to find regular employment in their own trades either this winter or next winter or perhaps for many winters to come. If one faces up to things, that is the conclusion to which we are bound to come; and I submit that once we accept that conclusion, once we agree that, whatever efforts any of us may make, we are still going to have the unemployed with us in large numbers for a long period of time, then, I suggest that as far as they are concerned the unemployment problem takes on a new aspect. It no longer becomes a question of finding some temporary employment which is going to carry them on to the good times coming in a few months. We have to recognise that while we may hope to get an increasing number of them employed in their own trades, there is a large number who are not going to find that employment, and we must make some provision to make their lives happier and more tolerable and to preserve in them their self respect and their
fitness to take work if work should be available.
It is in that spirit that the Government are facing this problem. Questions are addressed to us as though we had not lifted a finger to deal with the unemployed problem since we took office. We are asked, "When are you going to do something? What are you going to do now?" Have we not taken steps since we came into office? Have not all the things we have been doing during the past, 12 months been directed to putting the country back into a position when confidence might be restored and when trade could again revive? Have we not given Protection in the home markets to our home industries Are we not taking measures to assist agriculture in its terrible plight? I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who talks as though the population in the towns were going to bear the whole burden of the assistance given to agriculture. The prices of meat, which are now the great problem of agriculture, have tumbled down in the last two or three months. But what prices are they? They are the wholesale prices. Have the retail prices tumbled down in the last two or three months [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then why should we suppose that because wholesale prices go up again the retail prices should go up too? The country is the greatest market for the town. If the country is going to be bankrupt it will mean a very serious reduction in the amount of work for the towns. The interests of country and town are not antagonistic.
We will not grudge any steps which the Government can take to remedy the present situation. We have taken measures to balance the Budget and to cut down the national expenditure. The conversion operations in themselves are not only producing a saving of interest in the national expenditure but have the effect of cheapening the rate of borrowing right through. I believe the cheapening of money will work down through industry, and will again make another condition favourable for the revival of industry when confidence returns. I do not want to enter upon any controversial matter, but at any rate we believe the Agreements at Ottawa do offer new opportunities for our business men to increase their overseas trade, and we believe the negotiations which are now being
opened with foreign countries will give further promise of developments in overseas trade; and whilst anybody who took the figures of unemployment in a single month as a. definite indication of what the trend was going to be for the next 12 months would be rash and foolish to the last degree, yet, when you add to the great reduction in unemployment this month—a reduction unexpected, I think, by most Members at this time of the year—the other items of information which come to one from various sources, I for one do believe that we are beginning to reap the reward of all the efforts we have made over the last 12 months, and that the first steps have been taken towards a better state of things.
7.30 p.m.
But again, I say, we cannot expect to regain prosperity in this country while all the rest of the world is depressed. In that connection I would suggest that we must take into account not merely monetary questions but the financial, political and economic factors which were the subject of discussion by the Economic and Monetary Committee of the Ottawa Conference. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead stressed very sharply the point that attempts had been made to raise prices by the restriction of output. He said that every-one of those attempts had failed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen echoed that view. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has analysed the efforts that have been made to raise prices in that way. If the drop in commodity prices were wholly due to monetary considerations, the fall in prices ought to be equal throughout the whole class of commodities. As a matter of fact, it is not. It is the agricultural commodities, the primary products of the soil, that have suffered the greatest fall. In my belief, that extra fall which has been suffered by agricultural commodities is due to over-production. That over-production was masked for a long time. It began years before it was perceptible or recognised by the great majority of people in the world, because the overproduction was passing into stocks. Stocks were accumulating, until a point came when the confidence that things were going to be better and better and that all those stocks would presently be
consumed, vanished, and with the vanishing of confidence the whole structure crumbled and came to the ground.
Prices fell calamitously, and then began efforts to restrict, not production—and this is where my right hon. Friend and I are on different ground. The efforts made were not to restrict production; they were efforts to restrict the amount of commodities that came on to the market, and the result of that restriction was in some cases actually to increase the production, so that the stocks went on increasing until the situation became worse than it was before. Brazil was burning bags of coffee and trying to raise the prices, but was only increasing the plantation of coffee. It was not restriction of output. I put forward the suggestion that, if the schemes failed—the coffee scheme, the wheat scheme, the rubber scheme—it was because they did not go far enough back, and because they addressed themselves to keeping supplies off the market instead of restricting production where the fault really lay. There is one scheme, that for the control of tin, which has gone to the root and which has decreased production. That is the one scheme that has been successful.
These facts and considerations have made me believe that the scheme for the restriction of production in meat will be the most effective scheme to bring about the raising of the wholesale prices of meat, and that is a scheme which, with the co-operation of very few countries outside the British Empire, we can put into operation by our own wish. That experiment—you may call it that if you will—is an experiment the result of which we shall see before long. If it turns out, as I believe it will, that the experiment is a success, we shall have had an object lesson that will be well worth very serious consideration in trying to think how it is possible to raise the wholesale commodity prices of the world.
To sum up, I would say once again that the Government are grateful to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have made suggestions in the course of this Debate. The Government will consider and examine very carefully all those suggestions, and will do so, I think I may say, with an open mind, in this sense, that they agree as to the object we all desire to obtain and that they are
going to allow no preconceived notions to prevent their undertaking any plan which seems to them likely to achieve the object. In examining those plans we must not forget the lessons which have been learned during the experiments of past years, and we must be careful in trying to solve the problem of to-day that we are not multiplying the problems of to-morrow. In the meantime, the message of hope, as far as we can give one, that I would offer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the House in general, is this: Do not let us be too pessimistic about the present situation, because there are signs in many quarters that the effect of the measures that we have taken is beginning to show itself. For the rest, do not believe that we shall be lacking in those feelings of sympathy, understanding and consideration for those unfortunate fellow-countrymen of oars who, through no fault of their own, are condemned to be unable to find employment during the next period of years in the trades to which they have been or should have been accustomed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House views with concern the present volume of unemployment, and will welcome all proper measures for dealing with it.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (SPECIAL DUTIES) ACT, 1932.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I beg to move:
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Order, 1932, dated the twelfth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twelfth day of July, be approved.
I am quite sure that the House will readily accept the difficulty of turning from the Debate dealing with the problem of unemployment to the consideration of a subject which, it must be frankly admitted, whether we agree with the Government's policy or not, does not tend to further employment. This evening it is my duty to give some explanation to the House not only in regard to the old Order, but to the new, that becomes operative at 12 o'clock to-night. The Govern-
ment deeply deplore the circumstances responsible for this action. When it was necessary some few months ago to ask Parliament to give us the necessary powers and authority to impose these restrictions, I said, speaking on behalf of the Government, that we would welcome any and every opportunity that might present itself for discussion or negotiation that would bring this unfortunate dispute to an end. I emphasised then, and I emphasise now, what our attitude is, to make it clear to the House and to the country.
Agreement having been made between representatives of two Governments, after days and weeks of negotiation, and solemnly ratified and proclaimed to the world as a final financial agreement, we had no reason to believe then, and we have no reason to assume now, that those agreements were not legally and morally binding. We took the view, and we take the view to-day, that whatever may be said about the political history as between the Irish Free State and this country, the overwhelming mass of the people of this country and, we still believe, a majority of the people in the Irish Free State, believed when that Treaty was made, that that was the end of the political feud between the two nations. No one can deny, and I do not believe anyone can challenge, the statement that I now make, that every Government since that Treaty was made, no matter what their political complexion may have been, honourably observed their side of the agreement. As a member of the Governments of 1924 and 1929, I would say that those Governments were not only anxious and willing to bury the differences between the Irish Free State and this country, but gave every evidence of that desire. When the challenge came, I want the House to observe that the agreement with regard to the land annuities was an agreement made between the Government of the Irish Free State and this country.

Mr. MAXTON: A former Government.

Mr. THOMAS: Quite true. I do not gather that we have reached the stage in political history or constitutional government where we are to assume that the representatives of one Government can be repudiated by another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That may be a doctrine that will be practised by my hon. Friends if ever they get the opportunity,
but it is equally certain that the wish will be father to the thought, and they will never get that chance. [Interruption.] I am speaking of what I call the normal, constitutional, honest practice between peoples. Therefore, having entered into that agreement, and the British Government being entitled to a sum of about £5,000,000 per annum, which was due to the British taxpayer, it was, as I have indicated, somewhat of a shock to find the Irish Free State repudiating their obligation.
The Government faced the situation quite frankly. They said, "If there are any just or valid reasons why this money should be withheld, we are prepared to consider them." We examined every aspect of the question; we turned up every agreement that was made; we examined every document; and we came to the conclusion that this money was due. The money was withheld, and Mr. de Valera said quite frankly, without any attempt either to disguise his feelings or his intentions, "So far as we are concerned, we not only intend to withhold this money, but we believe that there is money due to us." That was a quite clear and straightforward explanation of his side of the case, and, having said that, he did not hesitate to express his views and give his reasons. We examined his side of the case, and we came to the conclusion that he could not justify that position. Therefore, having decided that we were entitled to this sum of money, having budgeted in our own national balance sheet for this money, and having ourselves undertaken the responsibility and liability of paying those who had loaned the money, we said, "We intend to take all the steps that are open to us to obtain what we believe is due to us."
We were then faced with dm question of the ways and means of doing it, and we came, very reluctantly, I repeat, to the conclusion that the only means open to us was to impose a tax upon certain imports coming into this country. When I introduced the Bill to the House, I explained that it was not intended as a vindictive policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I explained to the House that, the moment we secured the amounts due to us, we would take off the duty. But I also made it perfectly clear that we would shirk no task, however unpleasant
it might be, in obtaining the money. I made that absolutely clear to the House when introducing the Bill. As a result of the Order of the 12th July, we imposed a 20 per cent. duty on live animals for food, animals not for food, butter, eggs, cream, bacon, pork, poultry and game, and other meat of all kinds—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why did you not include stout?

Mr. THOMAS: I knew that my hon. Friend was so fond of stout that I thought I would spare him.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I never knew you to spare me anything.

Mr. THOMAS: At all events, I may summarise my enumeration by saying that 50 per cent. of the total value of the imports from the Irish Free State in the year 1930 could be included in the category of live animals. The effect of the imposition of those duties can be summarised roughly as follows. The total amount collected, up to the 29th October, was £674,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Over what period?

Mr. THOMAS: That is a period of 15 weeks up to the 29th October, or an average of, roughly, £44,000 per week over the 15 weeks from the institution of the Order. But for the last four weeks the average receipts have jumped from £44,000 to £74,000 per week.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Then why increase it?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity. I want to explain to the House the reason for this increase from £44,000 to £74,000 per week. The explanation is that the Irish Free State Government, while denying their liability to us, while proclaiming to their people that they were not legally or morally liable, while saying to their people, "We intend to resist the action of the British Government," proceeded at once to give a bounty to their people on exports to this country. I ask the House and the country to observe this fact. Here is a people who say, "We deny absolutely our liability morally and legally; there is no claim." That, shortly, is their position. We replied by saying, "Not only are we morally and legally entitled to this money, but we intend to get this money and to impose
duties." They replied by saying to their own people, whom they were telling that they were neither legally or morally responsible, and whom they were persuading to repudiate the Agreement, "But we will give you a bounty to contribute to this illegal thing which we are telling you ought not to exist." I put it to the House that if, during a period of 15 weeks, our receipts were £44,000 per week, the action that the Irish Free State Government themselves took in giving a bounty to their own people was the factor responsible for increasing that amount.
8.0 p.m.
I am asked, "If that be so, why increase it?" I will answer that question. I intimated, both on the introduction of the Measure and in answer to questions in the House, that the Government were determined to obtain this money. The amount involved was over £5,000,000. The receipts that I have already indicated to the House show conclusively that we were not likely to get that amount, and, therefore, if we were justified by the verdict of this House in saying that we intended to get the money, it was our duty to adopt every means at our disposal to obtain it. I want the House to assume for the moment that that was the Government's intention. It may be argued from the opposite side of the House that it was wrong, but I am putting the proposition that, the Government having made up their minds definitely and clearly to say that the British taxpayer shall not bear this burden—because that is the alternative—it was their responsibility to take the necessary steps to obtain the amount. Therefore, we were faced with this position. I had decided, in consultation with the Government, to examine very closely, not only the receipts that I have indicated this evening, but any other figures with a view to obtaining additional revenue, on the basis, as I. have said, that our intention was to obtain the £5,000,000. If, as seemed probable, a new Order was imposed some time before the end of this week, we should probably be accused—and, indeed, the suggestion may have been made—that we deliberately imposed these additional duties before the House itself had had an opportunity of judging the whole situation. I should have been subjected
to that charge. In other words, if I had imposed the new Order at the end of this week I might easily have been accused of shirking the responsibility of telling the full facts to the House to-night. Therefore, the House is called upon to endorse not only the previous Order but the new Order which becomes operative at 12 o'clock. Retaliation, which was inevitable, which I foresaw, and which I did not attempt to disguise from the House, has taken place. The Irish Free State Government have by retaliatory duties not only inflicted hardship and inconvenience but, I frankly admit, caused unemployment in this country, and it would be not only idle for me to deny it but it would be unfair. In coal and in other commodities the retaliation of the Irish Free State has unquestionably adversely affected our people. That is a fair statement of the situation. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did not question that at the time."] I do not think the hon. Member could turn up any word of mine—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: It is no good to say, "Hear, hear." It would be a surprise to me if you could find any indication in my speeches that from the moment I dealt with this question I was not alive not only to the possibility but to the certainty that our trade would be affected. The problem that faces the House is this. If they believe, as the Government believe, and as the great overwhelming mass of the people in the Irish Free State believe—[Interruption.] You may doubt it, but you cannot ignore the Debates in the Dail. You may doubt it, but you cannot change the representations made in the Free State Parliament by those who are as representative of Irish opinion as you are. It is idle to pretend that members of the Dail are not as representative of Irish opinion as you are. [Interruption.] I know that perfectly well, but the interjection that was made was in reply to my statement that there were in the Irish Free State large masses of people—

Mr. BUCHANAN: You said an overwhelming majority.

Mr. THOMAS: I never said a word about majority.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, an overwhelming majority.

Mr. THOMAS: Then I will say that in the Irish Free State itself there is a large mass of people who not only realise that these agreements were made on their behalf, but who believe that it is unwise as well as dangerous to repudiate obligations made solemnly on their behalf. Believing, as we do, that the British taxpayer should not be called upon to bear this liability, what other means are open to us than the course we have adopted? If we believe that we are entitled to this money, what other course is suggested by which we could obtain it? Over and above all that there is the fundamental fact that nothing would be more dangerous to the interests of this country or of the Irish Free State than the repudiation of agreements solemnly made. I deplore the necessity. I regret the circumstances. No one can accuse the Government of not availing themselves of every opportunity for a very full and frank discussion of the whole situation. We do not close the door even at this stage, but, in taking this step and in asking for the endorsement of the House, we say to the House and to the country that we will not be a party to the tearing up of agreements, we will not be a party to the repudiation of liabilities, and, however, unpleasant it may be, and however hard it may be to our own people, we believe that in the interests of good government in this country and in the Irish Free State the action we now take is the only one that we can honourably adopt.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened with very great care to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and I make haste to tell him here and now that I listened to him with growing apprehension. I think when he comes to reflect upon it, especially certain passages of it, and reads it to-morrow, having regard to his great responsibility, he will regret having used some of the expressions that he did use. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why? "] If I am called immediately to give an illustration of what I mean, I will recall the fact that he felt called upon to discuss what opinion was in the Irish Dail. He would be much more appropriately engaged in considering what the opinion is in Britain concerning this grave problem. We have had it brought before
the House on several occasions, and I will do him this justice, for it is no less than justice. He has spoken of it very gravely, I admit. He left the House under no misapprehension concerning his feelings as to the seriousness of the action which he called upon it to take some few weeks or months ago. But the problem has become graver and it is becoming progressively worse as the months roll by.
I am not quite sure that I should be wrong if I said that the Government from the very beginning of this business have erred in that they have seemed to rely too exclusively upon their numerical strength in the House, to back up their opinions and their actions. In point of fact what the right hon. Gentleman invites us to do is to take another very grave step in developing an economic war between this country and our neighbour beyond the seas. It is war. There is no doubt about that. There are no shells except economic shells, but the right hon. Gentleman has already indicated that in this economic war, as in more physical war, both sides are already beginning to suffer. His last sentence was that, so far from confining the effects of this warfare to the Irish side of the channel, the effects are to be found here in unemployment among our own people. You have that accompaniment of warfare of any sort, and both sides are inevitably brought within the vortex of discomfort, to say the least of it.
Some of us, when this policy was first propounded, told the right hon. Gentleman—he told us he was not unaware of it himself—that the inevitable consequence of this policy would be reprisals. Let the House recall a passage from his speech to-night. It was something like this. We said so and so. They replied so and so. We did this. They retorted. We proposed this. They replied. It is just pull Devil, pull baker. One side equally with the other, I regret to say, has determined not to give way one inch in regard to the fundamental problem that is involved. I should really like to ask the right hon. Gentleman where he supposes this policy is to end. He really must face up to it. He cannot go on in this grave way, embittering feelings on both sides of the Channel and producing such a situation as will in the long run make a final peace be-
tween the two peoples almost impossible. It is a very grave policy which the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, has embarked upon, and I invite him—not for the purpose of scoring off the Government I assure him, because I. am too keenly appreciative of the dangerous pass to which we have been brought in our relationships, the one side with the other—I ask him where is this policy to lead?
Every Member in the House is as desirous as I am, and the right hon. Gentleman is desirous, of seeing an end to this business. I am going to attempt to make a contribution, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman whose remark reached me will allow me to say that to-morrow morning I shall be prepared to let my contribution be put beside that of the right hon. Gentleman. I ask, since we are all of a common will and desire to bring this matter to a reasonable conclusion, is it not time for us to pause rather than to carry on with this policy in this futile kind of way? It is easier to start upon a career such as this than it is to stop, as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt by to-night is very acutely aware. The right hon. Gentleman never objects to people being frank with him, and I am certainly going to be frank with him to-night, for we are concerned with oar own Government in this House. The Irish will deal with theirs. I say to the right hon. Gentleman deliberately that I cannot conceive such a grave issue as this being so mishandled in the initial stages as was this issue. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman some months ago announce with all pomp and circumstance that the Government were going to take this line and that line in relation to the Irish Government, I had a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was strutting a little too jauntily before the footlights.

Mr. WALLHEAD: He has been out of the picture a long time, you know.

Mr. JONES: Really, this is not a problem in which we must fancy ourselves as great actors in a drama. Our main duty, and especially the duty of the right hon. Gentleman as I conceive it, was to try to prevent this problem from becoming of such immense proportions as it has now become. While I consider that the right hon. Gentleman was very much to
blame for the way in which he dramatised it in the early stages, I think that throughout this controversy the right hon. Gentleman has thoroughly believed in the position of the Government. Of that I have no doubt for a moment, but it is one of the tragedies of the whole problem. Just as the right hon. Gentleman himself has thoroughly believed in his side of the case, so have the Irish people believed equally thoroughly in their side of the case. So keenly do the respective sides feel the rightness of their case that neither is prepared to yield a single inch.
I would recall to the House this fact. There are some four instruments of agreement which are related to the particular problem with which we are concerned tonight. There is the instrument called the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. Then there is the instrument which is well known as the Hills-Cosgrave Agreement of 1923, the one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) signed on behalf of the Government. The Agreement of 1923 has been specially relied on by the Government in this controversy, but, after reading the Debates which have taken place recently upon the matter, it is well worth recalling to the House that the Agreement to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon attached his signature was not, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his opening speech, proclaimed to the world. In point of fact the Agreement was presented to this House, if my memory serves me aright, in April of this year, and it was the cardinal part of the case put by the Irish people that the Hills-Cosgrave Agreement has never yet been presented to the Irish Free State Parliament for ratification.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: My hon. Friend will not desire to score a debating point, but it is imperative, with so many people attaching importance to and affected by it that the fact should he stated, arid my hon. Friend does not desire, I know, to withhold facts. The 1923 Agreement was not only endorsed in the Dail, but a general election in Ireland followed it, and those who made the Agreement were returned. What greater evidence is there of the people endorsing it than that?

Mr. JONES: I will take my stand upon the first paragraph of Mr. de Valera's recent document. [Interruption.] I am
not going to allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with it like that. I am quoting the case which was held as sincerely on the Irish side as the right hon. Gentleman holds the case on his side.

Mr. THOMAS: But I stated the facts.

Mr. JONES: I am putting what Mr. de Valera called the facts, and a fact is just as much a fact in the de Valera statement as is a fact in the case of the right hon. Gentleman.
As indicated in its dispatches, the Government of the Irish Free State declines to recognise that there is binding force in certain instruments upon which the British Government rely.
In the next sentence he said the instrument of the 12th February is not a binding instrument because, amongst other reasons, it was not submitted to the Dail for ratification. I am not a Member of the Dail; Mr. de Valera is. He has access to official information, and I take it that he would not commit himself to a statement of that sort without reason, because that sort of statement is open to examination by anyone who cares to make inquiry. Yet in paragraph 1 Mr. de Valera says, with all the appearance of authority—that is all I can say about it—that the Agreement of 1923 was never submitted to the Dail for ratification. That is Mr. de Valera's case. He says that that Agreement, upon which the Secretary o! State for Dominion Affairs so much relies, never has been submitted to the Dail for ratification. Whether he is right or wrong does not concern me for the sake of my argument. The point I am making is, that one side believes in its case just as sincerely as does the other. It is a tragedy therefore that such a situation as now exists should be allowed to develop.
The next Agreement is the Ireland (Confirmation of Agreement) Act, of December, 1925. That was made after the Boundary Commission controversy.

Mr. THOMAS: The Labour Government appointed it.

Mr. JONES: I do not mind who appointed it. The question is, that it was carried. It was discussed by the Lord President of the Council, the right hon.
Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the late Lord Birkenhead, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and the late Sir William Joynson-Hicks. On the Irish side were Mr. Cosgrave, Mr. Blythe and Mr. O'Higgins. That Agreement was submitted to this House, quite properly, for ratification, but within a few months, in March, 1926, another Agreement was entered into, called the Blythe-Churchill Agreement. The Blythe-Churchill Agreement was discussed between two Ministers of the Government on both sides. It is the case of the Irishmen that this particular Agreement again was never submitted for ratification to either Parliament, certainly not to the Irish Parliament.
This question of ratification is therefore acquiring a special importance because the Irish place more and more emphasis on the fact as to whether a particular instrument or agreement was or was not ratified. We are not now in the region of controversy where ordinary laymen like myself can with assurance express an opinion. We are now in a region of controversy where only people of legal training can say whether a legal instrument is or is not of binding authority. The right hon. Gentleman, in one of his documents, claims quite boldly—I daresay on the advice of the Lao Officers of the Crown—that the Blythe-Churchill Agreement is a binding agreement. That is the advice that he gets, Hit the advice that Mr. de Valera gets is that it is not a binding agreement. Who is going to decide a controversy of that sort?

Major HILLS: Arbitration.

Mr. JONES: I am much obliged for that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman may go on saying: "You are bound till kingdom come." Mr. de Valera may go on saying: "No, I am not bound." The point is that you get no nearer settlement of the problem. Therefore, the question arises what ways and means can we find for settling this difficult legalistic controversy? The only way that I have heard of settling it is by arbitration. The right hon. Gentleman—I say this in his defence, if he requires defence from me—says, "I am prepared to accept the submission of this problem to the arbitrament of arbitration." So I understand does Mr. de Valera. Then a new crisis arises, that new crisis being, "What shall be the tribunal; who shall
compose it?" The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Surely, it has been a very vital controversy as to whether the tribunal shall be confined to members inside the Empire or whether it shall have an extra-Empire membership. Upon that rock the ship seems to have foundered. Because the parties have failed to arrive at an agreement on a point of that kind—I will not say that it is an unimportant point, in fact it is a point of substance to a vast area like the British Empire—surely it is not a sufficiently important point to justify the prolongation of a difficulty such as exists, with both sides embarking on recriminations and instruments of reprisal, with the inevitable consequence that unless a bridge can be built between the two sides soon, no peace will be found possible.
8.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are acutely conscious of the rightness of their case. I spent the week-end trying to read up as much of the documents as I could so as to be able to understand the other side as well as ours, and I confess as a layman, speaking without any legal knowledge, that I am convinced that the Irishmen have a case to put to arbitration. More than that I will not say. Let me show how you can, by omission, unintentional no doubt, present in an official document a wrong statement of a case. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at page 11 of the White Paper, 4184. He quotes, or alleges that he is quoting, Article 5 of the Treaty.

Major HILLS: Which Treaty?

Mr. JONES: The Treaty of 1921. Let me read the two passages. The White Paper says:
Article 5 provides that the Irish Free State should assume liability for the services of the public debt of the United Kingdom"—
The remainder is in inverted commas—
 'in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim.' 
Reading that passage, one would inevitably conclude that the words in inverted commas only referred to the public debt. What is the actual passage in the Treaty?
The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the public debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof, and towards the payment of war
pensions as existing at that date, in such proportion as may be fair and equitable.
The whole of the reference to pensions is kept out of the White Paper. If anyone reads the passage in the Treaty he is entitled to have some doubt as to whether the words, "in such proportion as may be fair and equitable," refer to the public debt or to pensions.

Mr. THOMAS: Read on. Read the next words.

Mr. JONES: I will. Article 2 of the amending Agreement of 1925 says:
The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligation under Article 5 of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

Mr. JONES: That is not my point at all. The point I am making is this. Here is a document which purports to give Article 5 of the Treaty, and I repeat, I challenge contradiction, that the quotation from Article 5 of the Treaty as given in this White document does not give exactly the sense of the passage in Article 5 as it appears in the text of the Treaty. It shows how easy it is for hon. Members on both sides of the House, listening to the case as put by the right hon. Gentleman and as put in official documents, to feel that there is absolutely no case at all to be put on the other side. I say, whether it is agreeable or not, that anyone who reads this story must come to the conclusion that there is a strong case to be put on the other side and that it can only be put to some tribunal in which both sides have complete confidence. That is all I want to say in order to prevent any misunderstanding.
I appreciate the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to a representative outside the Empire, I see the point, but I say that in my judgment either the right hon. Gentleman must, as an exceptional measure if you like, concede a representative outside the Empire as the Chairman of such a tribunal or—and this I should much prefer—he must say to the Irish people, cannot we as reasonable people arrive at a settlement of the amount, taking it as a final settlement of a business transaction, rather than allow this miserable quarrel to drag on to the detriment of both sides. Therefore, I say to the Government that they have to make up their minds as to whether they
want to use this instrument as a means of revenue or as a political instrument. I hope not the latter.
If it is a revenue-producing instrument what do these extra duties mean? They mean that the confident hope which the right hon. Gentleman held out to the House some weeks ago, that 20 per cent. would enable the Government to be recouped for any loss, has miserably failed. To-night you are doubling the duties, and you have no more guarantee to-night than you had three months ago that this will succeed. But this the Government can be very sure about; although they may double their duties and possibly get their money they will create such a situation of bitterness and animosity that a final settlement will be almost impossible. The right hon. Gentleman is too good a negotiator to forget the value of keeping some measure of good will on both sides when there is to be a prospective discussion. I will not discuss the details of these Orders because they are of small account compared with the vast issues involved. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, and through him the Government, to pause, to reflect, to think again and yet again, before he lands us as well as the people beyond the seas in a situation from which it will be difficult indeed to extricate ourselves later on.

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask the hon. Member this question, because it is very important and I did not want to interrupt his speech? I gather that he is speaking for his party. I want to ask him this specific question; do I gather that although we offered arbitration, and still offer arbitration, that although the late Labour Government were responsible for the Motion at Geneva that all arbitration within the Empire ought to be determined by an Empire tribunal, that the hon. Member, speaking for his party, now stands for Empire matters going outside the Empire?

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman must not put into my mouth something that I never said or that I now subscribe to all that he alleges we have agreed to in the past.

Mr. THOMAS: Do I gather now that speaking for his party the hon. Gentleman throws over, on behalf of his party, an Empire tribunal for Empire matters?

Mr. JONES: When I made the suggestion I told the right hon. Gentleman that I knew it was a, big thing to ask, I said that quite frankly; but I said that as a very exceptional measure it might well be worth while making the concession of an extra Empire representative as chairman of the tribunal to get rid of a difficulty which otherwise may not be settled at all.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Do I gather now that, speaking quite officially as he has done, the hon. Member now throws over—[Interruption.]—at any rate that he agrees that Empire matters shall be taken outside the Empire?

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman must not read into my statement more than I said. I was very careful to circumscribe it, and to what I have said I am prepared to adhere, and to nothing more.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, do I gather that my hon. Friend now subscribes to the policy that as an exceptional measure the Irish Free State difficulty should be referred to a, tribunal outside the Empire?

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand plain English.

Mr. ROSS: Not very plain.

Mr. JONES: But the hon. Member has understood it, I gather.

Mr. ROSS: Not until I got the explanation.

Major HILLS: We now have an admission that this is a difference which hon. Members want to have referred to a tribunal outside the Empire. I can conceive no reason why, if the hon. Member still considers Ireland part of the Empire, there should be exceptional treatment for Ireland. There is no reason whatever. From first to last the hon. Member put, the Irish case. He never attempted to stand aside and judge the matter impartially, or still less to put the case of Britain and the British taxpayer. All his thunder and his thumpings on that Box were to reinforce points made by Mr. de Valera. All his attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs was directed to that end. He told my right hon.
Friend that the problem was becoming graver, that it had been mishandled, that it could not go on, and that his policy was leading nowhere. Does he not realise that we who speak, I think impartially, but also for the British taxpayer, appreciate that my right hon. Friend went to the very limit of concessions. First of all he offered arbitration and he offered the apt tribunal for inter-Imperial disputes, an Empire tribunal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes, he did. He offered arbitration.

Mr. ATTLEE: The point is that the Free State never agreed to that form of tribunal.

Major HILLS: I know they did not. But that is the point between us. What is the good of repeating the point that divides us. Hon. Members opposite think that this dispute ought to go to someone, I do not know who, and that as long as it is someone outside the Empire it does not matter to whom it goes. We say that it ought to be treated as all matters of inter-Imperial quarrel are treated and. as everyone of standing, until to-night, agreed they should be treated. Now an exception is to be made in the case of Ireland and a special tribunal of a different kind is to be set up.

Mr. ATTLEE: South Africa did not agree either. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if this was something agreed to by the Dominions. South Africa and the Irish Free State did not agree to this proposal. When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is an apt tribunal, that only his idea.

Major HILLS: I have never mentioned a Dominion at all. I say that if there is any dispute that ought to go to an Empire tribunal, here is a dispute that should do so. That is the point that divides us. We hold that that is an essential point that ought never to be given away. There is a second essential point. I had the honour to negotiate and sign that Agreement with Mr. Cosgrave. The hon. Gentleman made some play on two points. First of all, if I understood him aright, he contrasted the 1923 Agreement with the 1926 Agreement, to the advantage of the latter, on the ground that the latter Agreement at least was made between two Ministers.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the time, that he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But that was not my point. My point of contrast was that the 1923 agreement, it is held by Mr. de Valera, was never ratified by the Irish Parliament. In the case of the 1925 Act there was the ratification of an agreement, and the point I made was that the idea of ratification was becoming increasingly important.

Major HILLS: Very well, then. I want to deal with that in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The conference that led up to the agreement was arranged in dispatches to the Governor-General of the Free State, and I had the honour to be the representative of the British Government. Mr. Cosgrave was the representative of the Irish Government. I shall deal with the question of secrecy in a minute. I want first to clear away a few of the many misconceptions which have been spread about this case. Mr. Cosgrave was accompanied by Mr. Hogan, his Minister of Agriculture; by Mr. Kennedy, the Attorney-General; and on one day by Mr. Justice Wylie. We sat for some time and the, matter was very carefully discussed. It was a compromise. Both sides put their case, and anyone who thinks that the Irish case was not strongly put knows very little of Mr. Cosgrave. I saw quite a good deal of Mr. Cosgrave. I recognise, as everyone does, that Mr. Cosgrave is a man of very strong will, and has an intimate knowledge of the facts of the case which we discussed. So much for the official charater of the agreement of 1923. I mention it because, although it was not mentioned by the hon. Member, he did throw a good deal of discredit on that agreement and treated it as if it were something outside the ordinary ambit of inter-Imperial relations. As a matter of fact it was made between authorised representatives and was a bargain on both sides.
Now as to secrecy. The agreement was taken back to Ireland. It was mentioned by Mr. Cosgrave in the Dail a short time afterwards. It was acted on. These land annuities were paid and were included in the public accounts of the Irish Free State. How can you call that a secret agreement? It was carried out in the way that such agreements are carried out. It was not a secret agreement and
public action was taken upon it. Now I will come to the next step. The agreement was not ratified. That is common knowledge. Neither Parliament ratified it. But it did not require ratification. It was carried through by authorised representatives of the peoples. It was acted on for years without any protest. Now there are all these people springing up, statesmen some of them, two or them senators. Where were their eyes when the accounts of the Free State were published? I suppose they scrutinised those accounts, and when they saw the land annuities paid why did they not query the payment? So far as I know no one queried the payment because they knew the annuities were due under the agreement. There is no sort of dispute about it. It was a legal agreement. The only real point against it is that it was not ratified. I say it did not require ratification.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is the other reason given, that this payment never was properly due to be made by the Irish people, apart altogether from ratification.

Major HILLS: If two Governments through their authorised representatives agree to make a payment, and if that payment is openly and publicly made, I say that that is a payment and the agreement under which the payment is made ought to stand. I stand on the simple legality of the agreement.

Mr. LOGAN: Is not the difference of opinion as to the validity of any such Agreement at all being made, and not as to the Agreement itself?

Major HILLS: Of course it is challenged by Mr. de Valera.

Mr. LOGAN: Why not have the tribunal?

Major HILLS: My answer is that a proper tribunal to settle this difference has been proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It is also said that Mr. Cosgrave was rushed into this Agreement. There has been so much misrepresentation upon this matter that it is time the case was put properly. Mr. Cosgrave came here accompanied by two of his colleagues and they were assisted by two distinguished public servants—civil servants.
The Agreement was drawn up under the auspices of his own Attorney-General. The discussion lasted some time before the document was drafted and, when the document was drafted, it was considered, it was amended, it was agreed to and it was finally signed. I ask the House: If an Agreement of that sort is not to be treated as binding then what agreement is binding It is no use saying that because you do not like an agreement you will not abide by it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this Agreement. They want to place this charge on the British taxpayer, quite apart from the agreement. Their argument in effect is in favour of charging on the British taxpayer these annuities which are the repayments by the Irish farmers of the advances with which they bought their land.
I do not deal with that question. That is not my business to-night but I wish to put before the House the simple position that this Agreement was made between two parties, both understanding their case well and both putting their case well. It was a fair compromise and all the concessions were not on one side. We gave very big concessions and as the right hon. Gentleman has just said we gave a still further concession a few years later. Our conduct in the matter is proper and right. The Agreement; was legally arrived at and it cannot be broken without a breach of a bargain that ought to be maintained, and if this bargain is not to stand I do not know of any international bargain that can stand. The hon. Member opposite has said that there is a strong case on the other side. Let those who believe in that case put it to an Empire tribunal. I will not prophesy the result, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman opposite, with all the force which he put behind his speech, has not advanced the case at all. The only point he made against the Agreement was that of secrecy, and I think I have sufficiently dealt with that. The right hon. Gentleman the Dominions Secretary has gone to the very limits of concession.
I do not like to quarrel. I prefer to settle disputes, if possible, in a reasonable way. It is we who have been reasonable in this case and it is the Irish people who have been unreasonable. When the hon. Gentleman opposite tells my right hon. Friend that he will have
to arrive at a settlement with the Irish people, I say that the right hon. Gentleman has gone the best way about it and that, without giving up everything and without surrendering all the rights of Great Britain and the British taxpayer, he can go no further.

9.0 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We had a long discussion on these matters when the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act was before the House. That Act is on the Statute Book and to-night we are discussing not the principles of that Act, not the question of the Treaty—because the discussion on the Treaty in relation to these Duties took place on that Act—but the collecting of revenue under that Act. With great respect to the Secretary of State for the Dominions I think he was not as clear as he usually is in regard to the second Order. No one regrets more than I do that the Government have found it necessary to collect these annuities through the machinery of the Customs. I think myself that they have a very strong case for collecting the revenue, somehow, but I regard the machinery which has been adopted as most unfortunate from the point of view of our own country. What I said upon this matter in our previous discussion has proved true. The inevitable result of a policy of this character has been retaliation and, as was foreseen by some hon. Members, we are now engaged in what is more or less a tariff war. The attack on the trade and agriculture of the Irish Free State has been met by an attack on our industry, on our coal, on our manufactures, and, at the very time when we can least afford it, we have one of our best markets more or less closed to us. Undoubtedly this is doing the Irish consumer an immense amount of harm, but at the same time it is causing immense hardship to a. great number of our manufacturers and producers who depended largely on the Irish trade. I was speaking the other day to a big merchant in the City of London who carries on a large trade in Southern Ireland and he told me that the whole of that trade is disorganised and dislocated as a result of these duties.
I am not for a moment questioning the first Order, but I do not understand the second Order, and that is the mystery which the right hon. Gentleman did not
explain. He told us that as a result of the bonus system established in the Irish Free State the figures have jumped up from £44,000 to £74,000. What more does he want? He made it clear that the only purpose of this machinery was the collection of revenue to meet the obligations of the Irish Free State Government, and that, as soon as that revenue was forthcoming, the machinery would be abandoned. I have often heard hon. Members with tariff reform leanings express the belief that the foreigner can be made to pay a tax of this kind. Here is a practical example of the Irishman being made to pay the tax by the machinery of our duties, through the direct assistance given by the Irish Free State Government in regard to the bonus.

Mr. PIKE: Who pays the tax?

Sir P. HARRIS: The Government. The taxpayer pays it.

Mr. PIKE: What taxpayer?

Sir P. HARRIS: The Irish taxpayer. But what more do we want? Now the Government propose to raise this duty to the prohibitive rate of 40 per cent., and the purpose undoubtedly is that of stopping the coming into this country of the whole of the cattle that Ireland exports to us. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that 50 per cent. of the articles affected were livestock, a very important trade that not only helps the South of Scotland but gives a large amount of employment in the Midlands and also in Birkenhead. I assume that the purpose of this duty being raised to 40 per cent. is to prohibit and destroy this trade altogether.

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary. The hon. Member will remember that. when I introduced the original Bill I said the purpose of the Bill was to collect £3,000,000, having regard to the then circumstances in Ireland. They have also withheld other money since then. It is now £5,000,000, and I have therefore to obtain, not £3,000,000, but £5,000,000. Hence my action.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that a 40 percent. duty on this trade can go on? He knows very well that the first effect of the duty will be to stop the trade altogether.

Mr. THOMAS: I want to make it quite clear to the House and to the country that this is not a punitive measure on my part. [Interruption.] I know that nothing that I say will convince my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite, but at least I hope to convince my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). Therefore, I want to say to him quite clearly that if the Irish Free State Government, who deny their liability to us, can give a bounty to their people to compete with us on a 20 per cent. duty, I see no reason why they should not pay a bounty on a 40 per cent. duty.

Sir P. HARRIS: I think it is most unlikely. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, I agree, he will achieve his purpose, but I maintain that a 40 per cent. duty is tantamount to prohibition. I wanted to be assured, and I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, which is some satisfaction; that is the purpose for which I rose. I am concerned about the consumer in this country and the important cattle industry in the South of Scotland and in the Midlands. Time will show, but my own fear is that this has all the appearance of prohibition. If I am wrong, I am willing to be convinced, but I cannot help suspecting that these duties are a part of the agricultural policy of the Government. I hope I am wrong, but it may be that there is here part of this policy of stimulating a certain section only of the cattle industry in this country, because obviously it would handicap the graziers of Southern Scotland and the Midlands.
It is very unfortunate, anyhow, that for the first time in our history we have levied a duty of 40 per cent. on essential foodstuffs coming from a part of the Dominions of the British Empire. It is a terrible tragedy. Even with Russia, we have never used these punitive measures, but have always been prepared to buy their commodities without any punitive taxation. I am afraid this will have a very bad effect on Ireland. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a large section, if not a majority, of the Irish people who are anxious to put an end to this unfortunate controversy, but I am afraid that this action on the part of the Government will have a bad effect on some of our best friends in
Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ingenuity and skill, and with the desire to collect this revenue, could have found a better way than a prohibitive duty of 40 per cent. An hon. Member opposite suggested, probably as a joke, that there was an article called stout. I agree that there are large British interests engaged in the production of stout, but I think the right hon. Genetleman might have taxed something else without singling out the cattle industry and the essential food products contained in the list included in the Order. It is a very unfortunate way for the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his policy, assuming that the object is purely to collect revenue.
My last word is that I still hope that a way may be found to find a tribunal that will be satisfactory both to this country and to the Dominion of Ireland. I have a great deal of sympathy with the idea that we should have an Empire tribunal, but there will have to be a compromise, and I think a little ingenuity might be used. I would make a suggestion which will save both our face and the face of the Irish Government. Why should not The Hague Tribunal appoint this proposed tribunal from jurists drawn from the Commonwealth of Nations? Jurists from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are well known to The Hague Tribunal and they are impartial, and that might be a way out.

Mr. THOMAS: I want the House and the country to know the facts, and I want to make it perfectly clear that not only at the outset, but in the last negotiations with Mr. de Valera I said, on behalf of the Government. "We are not wedded to the form of the tribunal; we do not even care that we are represented oil the tribunal—that is England—but any tribunal the composition of which is limited to the British Empire, or, as it is called, the British Commonwealth of Nations, we will accept." I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension on that point. The only condition I made was the British Commonwealth of Nations, and I put it to the House that no one could have gone farther.

Sir P. HARRIS: I suggest that it might be a way out, even at the eleventh hour, that a tribunal so composed should be appointed by The Hague Tribunal. I do not know if that suggestion has been
made to Mr. de Valera, but it is a possible way of saving their face and at the same time of maintaining the principle to which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, quite rightly, adhere.

Mr. THOMAS: That proposal has not been made, but I want to assure my hon. Friends, so that they should be under no misapprehension, that we said, on behalf of the Government, to Mr. de Valera, "The form of the tribunal, whether it is British, or Irish, or Canadian, or Australian, makes no difference, if it is within the British Empire." We have made it quite clear, and that is the limit.

Mr. MAXTON: I was very interested in the ease that the right hon. Gentleman made to-night. He comes down to ask this House to consent to the doubling of the duties which he assured us some months ago would be sufficient to collect this debt from Ireland. He now comes and tells us that that policy has been a complete failure. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] That is what I deducted from the right hon. Gentleman's statement to-night, in so far as getting near the possibility of collecting the £5,000,000 inside the 12 months when that £5,000,000 is due is concerned.

Mr. THOMAS: When I first introduced the Bill, the difference between us was the land annuities amounting to £3,000,000—

Mr. BUCHANAN: And the other stuff was added?

Mr. THOMAS: The other stuff, as my hon. Friend calls it, was added by Mr. de Valera.

Mr. MAXTON: When the last Order was before the House, I specifically asked the right hon. Gentleman if the taxes were to be limited to the question of the land annuities or if they were to include the other things concerned; and he said that they were to include them all, and that the total amount was £5,000,000. Now he comes here and tells us that the rate of tax which, according to the best advice of his experts four or five months ago, would raise £5,000,000, is now proving—℔[Interruption].I wish the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) would not interrupt; it is most disconcerting when he shakes his
head and contradicts his Leader on the Front Bench. I am not giving my view, but stating what the right hon. Gentleman says, and to see a loyal follower like the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon dissenting from his Leader is distressing to me. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the 20 per cent, tariffs imposed a few months ago could not look at the collection of a £5,000,000 debt, and therefore he comes forward and asks us to increase the amount to 40 per cent.
I want to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that more than his financial estimate has gone wrong. His political estimate of this situation has also gone wrong. He and his colleagues imagined that by adopting this attitude towards Mr. de Valera in Ireland they would create such a furore over Mr. de Valera that, seated in a somewhat insecure Governmental position, he would speedily be unseated, and the National Government would get back again to the old position where the British Government could act harmoniously with Mr. Cosgrave, who w as responsible for the original treaties and the subsequent agreements arising out of them. In dealing with this matter in the House I have always taken my stand, not on the question of what kind of tribunal should adjudicate, or on what was the proper amount due, or on what was said in the agreements of 1921 or 1923; I have taken my stand on the fact that a Government in any country, elected to do certain things, are entitled to go ahead and to do those things. Mr. de Valera was elected in Ireland on a specific mandate, part of which was that if returned to power he would discontinue the payment of the land annuities. He was returned to power, not a very complete piece of power, not a power like hon. Gentlemen have on the other side of the House; but to anyone who is watching events in Ireland since the National Government started this punitive, hostile method of tax collection against Ireland it is evident that Mr. de Valera's position in Governmental power is infinitely stronger than it was before the taxes were put on.

Mr. THOMAS indicated dissent.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman knows what appeared about Mr. Cosgrave in the week-end papers, in the
same papers that contained the delightful pictures of the right hon. Gentleman at the christening of his two grandsons, James Henry and Henry James; those pictures delighted all our hearts and made it impossible for us to believe that this beautiful picture of domestic bliss could really occur in the home of the harsh Irish tyrant. In that paper we read about Mr. Cosgrave endeavouring to address a meeting in some part of Ireland and having to escape through a back door. [Interruption.] I know other places where it has happened, and it is usually taken as indicating that the person who is shooting the moon, or whatever the technical phrase is, has not behind him the majority of the population of the place where he is so treated. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that part of the calculation of the National Government when they took this action was that it would assist to overturn Mr. de Valera and his power in Ireland, but the exact contrary has proved to be the case.
A lot of this talk about the sanctity of treaties gets perilously near humbug. There must be some limit to that general theory about the sanctity of the contracts of one Government being observed by its successors. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Government had contracted with the unemployed of this country to pay them 17s. a week. Its successor broke that contract and reduced the amount to 15s. 3d. That was a definite change of policy as between one Government and its successor, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously maintain that the actions of one Government must be endorsed, accepted and continued by its successors. Indeed, it makes all Parliamentary Government ludicrous if it is not possible for one Government to change the policy of its predecessor. It may be said that this matter is different, that it does not matter what you do with your own unemployed; they are your own citizens, and you can treat them as dirtily as you please. A contract with them is not binding in honour, but when you enter into a contract as between two different countries, then that takes on a peculiar sanctity and no Government has the right to break it. During the last three weeks, however, the right hon. Gentle-
man has come back from Ottawa and has told us that, in order that we might operate the new Treaties, we must begin to repudiate a whole lot of treaties in different parts of the world.

Mr. THOMAS indicated dissent.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman must not shake his head, for he knows that that is perfectly true. Previous treaties that have been accepted by this Government and previous Governments have been denounced in order that the Ottawa Agreements may be made effective. Therefore, it is possible and necessary that the treaties of one Government at one time may be altered, changed, and denounced by subsequent Governments. Mr. de Valera stands for an independent Irish Republic. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Mr. de Valera did not hide that fact in his conversations in London, and that he also said that so far from a £5,000,000 debt being the only issue between Ireland and Britain he could go back over the whole history of the Irish associations with Great Britain and claim amounts totalling £400,000,000. While the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that is just, I want to tell him this that in Scotland, where people are much less hot headed and much less nationalistic than they are in Ireland, there is a growing movement for Scottish independence, and a large portion of the case which those striving for Scottish independence are making is that, throughout the whole alliance of Scotland with England, Scotland has never received its proportion of what it has paid into the National Exchequer. I am not entering into the controversy here. I am merely saying that should history prove that these people are thrown into power, and Scotland secures independence and self-government, you may take it that the Scottish people, having secured their independence, will absolutely decline to continue payment to what they would regard as a foreign nation.
I would say this: Any Government which takes power in revolutionary circumstances deliberately by its accession to power makes a definite break with the past—with the trading methods, financial methods and land-owning methods of the past, and has a perfect right to cut off every agreement and arrangement re-
lating to the past; starting with an absolutely clean sheet and only agreeing to those payments which it itself can regard as just. Those who find themselves aggrieved must adopt what remedies they think fit. Somebody says Russia. Russia is a very fine case in point. Russia achieved a revolution which was a complete break with the past and stated to the whole world that it was starting on a new basis. Russia repudiated its debts and, although many Governments have sat on that Treasury Bench which were definitely anti-Russian, no Government has attempted to collect those debts from Russia. Ireland, yes. They are our own kith and kin, and we can bully and drive them, but we do not take action against Russia and Germany and against the hundred and one countries of the world owing Great Britain money; and we have no intention of doing it. But here are the Irish people who say: "Why should we pay tribute for our own soil?" That is a most irksome payment which can be asked of any man with a love of country in him. That is what we are asking the Irish people to do—to pay tribute, not even to another nation but individual citizens of another nation, in order that they may have the right to till their own soil. There can be no more humiliating thing imposed on any nation, and no more just cause for refusing to make such payments.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises, in bringing forward his proposals to-night, that his previous proposals have failed. His bringing of them forward is a recognition of their failure. I hope he realises that the new ones he is bringing forward will meet with as little measure of success as the previous ones. As an hon. Gentleman speaking for the official Opposition said, all you will get out of this is increased bitterness between the two nations. Some serious difficulties are imposed on certain sections of our population.
9.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman makes play with the fact that the Irish Government are paying a bounty on Irish exports. The people of the West of Scotland, who need these cattle, are also helping to pay the bounty to enable the British Government to pay the interest of the holders of Land Annuities. The whole thing is one ludicrous, vicious circle, and the right
hon. Gentleman may come to us in another three months and say: "Forty per cent. is not bringing in my £5,000,000, give me power to make it 80 per cent." And he may come in a further three months and say: "Give me power to make it 160 per cent." All the time he will be driving the Irish people more and more back on themselves and, in attempting to compel them into the British Empire, he may take the very steps to drive them out.

Major PROCTER: I am speaking on this Irish question, first, because my ancestry is from Ireland and, secondly, because it was my duty in the Sinn Fein trouble to act for the repression of that rebellion which ultimately culminated in the surrender of English rule in Ireland. When the first Treaty was made, we all imagined that at long last we had made an honourable truce with Ireland; that we would no longer hear Irish grievances not only in Ireland but in this House. For over 10 years Southern Ireland under her own Government achieved a certain measure of prosperity. They honourably kept their word, and we honourably kept ours. A new situation arises because with the change of Government there was one wise man who nursed all the old-time animosities, and would rather have the harp that, was once in Tara's halls than any modern grand piano. He was surrounded by innumerable young gunmen who wanted to die for Ireland without actually doing it. He was pushed by that blind, venomous hatred of this country, and supported by a proportion of the people who, from their earliest childhood, had been taught to hate this country. The policy of denouncing this Treaty, and trying to get through an honourable arrangement by chicanery, has revived the old and ancient issue of a Republic for Ireland. In my opinion, if we were to settle this question now; if we were to renounce the annuities to which we are justly entitled, it would be the beginning of some fresh demands. This, in my opinion, is a mere step nearer to the larger issue.
If you read Irish history—I am not speaking of past days because I must admit that things were done in Ireland, especially against religion of which we are rightly ashamed at this time, but for the last thirty years, in the generation of the people of to-day—has not the desire of England been to meet every
legitimate request and demand of Ireland? When there was a demand for lower rents, this Parliament gave the right to the Irishman to go and get his land court. He went and got his land court, and, when the land court assessed his improvements and gave him a lower rent, he said: "Thank you very much, we still want Home Rule." Again, in order to keep them quiet we said: "Your housing is very bad, we will put cottages all over Ireland, and you can have them, with half-an-acre of land, at a rent of 1s. a week." They said: "Thank you very much—but we still want Home Rule!" Then we tried to satisfy them by passing an Act the generosity of which has been unequalled in the British Empire. We gave them the land at practially half the rent they were paying, and if they paid just one half the rent in the form of these annuities it meant that their land was theirs for ever. And they said: "Thank you very much—but we still want Home Rule!" The present position is that, having got the land, they want the money too.
I am of the opinion that you will never satisfy Ireland's grievance until we give her the greatest of all grievances, and thrust her out of this Empire. So long as they can make it appear as though we want them in our Empire for the good we get out of them, so long will they think there is some ulterior motive behind. What we ought to say to the agitators over there and to these hot-headed people in Ireland, is what the devil is supposed to have said to a very well known agitator: "Here, take this shovel and lump of coal, and go and make a hell of your own." In Australia, in Canada and on the Clydeside there are Irish centres of sedition which are the ulcer, the cancer, in the Empire, arid the sooner we get rid of them the better. [Interruption.] Clydeside is full of them, and when this idea of mine is carried out they will go back instead of drawing the dole here.

Mr. LOGAN: When are you going to take it?

Major PROCTER: I have no need to take it. I commend the policy of the Government for its firmness. Any other would be regarded as a sign of weakness. They are twisting our tail, they are carrying on the policy of their fathers
before them, and it is for us to keep firm. If it is a question of arbitration, let us have an arbitrator appointed from the Empire from those who are Empire-minded. We do not care who they are as long as they are Empire-minded. If they do not want some Power or people that sympathise with our own ideas, let them choose the chairman from the Clydeside, if they wish. In my opinion it would be disastrous to give in to them. We should be regarded as a puny people and a puny Government. It is in times like this that I am thankful we have a National Government to deal with the situation in the way they are and not the way in which my hon. Friends opposite would treat de Valera and all the rest of the anti-Empire people.

Mr. HEALY: The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, when he opened this Debate to-night, expressed his good feelings towards the Irish Free State and the Irish people, but he soon made it plain that very different feelings actuate him, because I have never heard a more vindictive speech delivered from the benches opposite than was his speech towards its close, and this present Order is just as vindictive as his speech. The history of this country and Ireland has had many turning points. I will mention three. The first was when this House rejected the Home Rule Bill of Mr. Gladstone, largely at the dictates of people like my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last. The second occasion was when Mr. John Redmond made his moving appeal to this House on the eve of the War. The third occasion is the introduction of these duties. I am afraid there are still in this House many people who entertain bitter memories of Ireland. You have made your peace with Germany, you have gone to allied nations and endeavoured to make new agreements with them about duties and armaments, you have almost made your peace with Russia. Ireland is to be the political Cinderella. You are going to make no peace with Ireland.
If you can for a moment divest your minds of the prejudice which you have towards Ireland, and look at the matter dispassionately, you will see that the Irish Free State and the Irish people have a much stronger case than the one which has been presented by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. First
of all you should recognise what this quarrel with the Irish means. Ireland is your best customer. You have been rushing to the Colonies and abroad making agreements and creating tariffs in the hope of improving the unemployment position in this country, but while you are doing that you are literally shaking your fist in the face of your best customer and your kindliest neighbour. Let me give the House some figures with regard to the exports from this country to the Irish Free State during the year ended December, 1931. The exports to the Irish Free State from this country were greater than the exports to India, Germany, France or the United States. They were three times greater than your exports to New Zealand, and one and a-half times more than your exports to Canada. In fact, excepting South Africa, the Irish Free State was the only country of considerable size with which you had a favourable balance of trade. Now you are going to throw this huge trade away because the Secretary of State for the Dominions cannot agree with Mr. de Valera upon the appointment of an umpire in this dispute.
You are going to throw more people out of work. It is well known that the ports and the railways of this country are largely employed in dealing with merchandise from Ireland. What is to happen to the large body of people thus employed when, in the near future, the trade which now shows a diminishing revenue is wiped out altogether? There has been a hurt to the Imperial pride. I will not venture into the merits of the quarrel. Any hon. Member who reads the White Paper will see what is the Free State ease and what is the British case, too. I would point out that the Irish people and the Irish Government were fortified by the best legal advice they could find in Ireland. Up to this moment, I have not heard that the British Government has had the legal advice of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the matter.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The hon. Member will be reported in Northern Ireland, so that I had better correct him at once by saying that I have taken the advice not only of the present Law Officers of the Crown, but of the last Law Officers of the Crown, who were equally satisfied that the claim is valid. Everything I
have done has been absolutely in accordance with the Law Officers' advice. He must know that at once.

Mr. HEALY: The Free State Government have made public the opinion of their lawyers. This is the first time that I have heard that the Law Officers of the Crown have even been consulted. The Agreement of 1923 ought to have been ratified, because it was an Amendment of the Treaty, yet not only was it not ratified, but it was never published. Up to within three weeks of the first discussion in this House, it was not available in the Library, and applications to the Dominions Secretary himself showed that it was not procurable. What was there to hide about the 1923 Agreement? The 1923 Agreement was published, as well as what is called the "ultimate financial settlement" of 1926. The 1923 Agreement, it is true, was made between the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and Mr. Cosgrave, but it needed ratification as much as the 1925 Agreement, because it was an Amendment of the Treaty. I could not find a copy of the 1923 Agreement four weeks before the discussion in this House. We can therefore realise how secret it was kept. We can imagine the reasons for that secrecy.

Mr. THOMAS: I must intervene again. The hon. Member is challenging not only the veracity but the integrity of Mr. Cosgrave. Mr. Cosgrave is an official politician in Ireland. I cannot allow the suggestion that he deliberately suppressed something to go without a correction. It is unfair, because the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty in Ireland. Whatever our political views we must do nothing that creates a difficulty. I want to tell the hon. Member that Mr. Cosgrave was not only challenged on that Agreement but went to an election. If the Opposition do not know how to conduct an election it is not our business.

Mr. HEALY: Mr. Cosgrave could not have gone to an election on a document which none of the Opposition had ever seen—[Interruption].

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hon. Members who talk about interruption have interrupted during the whole evening. Some hon. Members have not been here, and yet the hon. Member who is speaking has
been here for the whole of the time. The Dominions Secretary objects strenuously to the hon. Gentleman saying anything about Mr. Cosgrave, but he himself can use any kind of language about the other side in Irish politics. He has no right to object, after the way in which he has treated the other side.

Mr. THOMAS: I have not objected in the least to any statement of fact, and I have only corrected where it was necessary to bring out the facts. I have repeated to the hon. Gentleman that the Agreement which WAS made with the British Government was challenged in the Dail, and that an election followed in which the electorate endorsed the action of Mr. Cosgrave. That is all that I have said, and it is in fairness to Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues that I have said it.

Mr. HEALY: The Irish people were in complete ignorance of the 1923 Agreement up to 1932. No facts about it could have been put before the electorate to have influenced the majority. The Irish public believed that they were released from the public Debt under the Agreement of 1925, and that it included the Land Stock. The Land Stock was issued by the Treasury. If the tenants failed to pay the annuities, the loss would have to come on to the Treasury. The Free State Government do not repudiate their debts. The Minister this afternoon has said almost in so many many words that the Free State Government repudiate their debt. They do not. Mr. de Valera has said that if the British Government can establish that the Free State is liable for the land annuities, he will pay them, but neither he nor the people of Ireland believe that there is a legal liability.
The whole question turns upon the appointment of the umpire in this dispute, and is as to whether the umpire is to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or an outsider. I would like the House to bear in mind that the Free State Government have not said anywhere that they will not accept a member of the British Empire. What they have said—and, I think, rightly said—is that they would not allow the field of selection to be narrowed down by one of the parties to the dispute. That is a very different matter. The objection of the Free State to the narrowing down
of the choice of umpire to a particular portion of country is not on that ground. It is an objection that is not unreasonable in the circumstances. If hon. Members will allow their minds to go back a few years to another matter, namely the Boundary Commission, they will remember that the chairman of the Boundary Commission was selected from the British Empire. The vital matter to be ascertained there was the "wishes of the inhabitants" of a particular area. The wishes of the inhabitants were never ascertained, and in that respect the nationality of the six counties claim that the Treaty was never carried out. Indeed, a prominent member of the late Free State Administration has said that, if they had understood that you were not going to carry out the intention and purpose of Article 12, they never would have implemented the Treaty. Having in view an example of that kind, of what they would receive if they consented to the appointment of an Empire Tribunal, it is perfectly natural that the Free State should be very suspicious of another appointment on the same lines. Indeed, I think the Free State Government would be responsible for a betrayal of the national trust if they walked into the same pit again.
There is another reason why the Free State cannot, even if they were disposed to do so, pay the large amount of land annuities and other sums involved in the £5,000,000 a year. What does it mean? It means one-fifth of the revenue of the Irish Free State, and there is no State in the world that could export one-fifth of its revenue to another country without meeting with financial ruin. Your own payments to the United States are a case in point. Moreover, the Irish Free State have never collected the land annuities which they passed on to this -country. There were many cases in the poorer districts where the farmers were unable to pay owing to depression, and the county councils were asked to refund out of their agricultural grants the sums that were unpaid. In that way the ratepayers were obliged to pay twice over—first in respect of their own annuities, and next in respect of the unpaid annuities in the poorer districts. Indeed, it was the injustice of that fact that was, as much as anything else, responsible for driving the Cosgrave Government out of office.
Consider for a moment what this payment of £5,000,000 a year means to the Free State. We can better realise it by comparing it with the Imperial contribution from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has received the land annuities for purposes of administration, but, against that, Northern Ireland pays an Imperial contribution. The total Imperial contribution which Northern Ireland has paid since 1921 is approximately £6,000,000. In that period the Free State has paid £51,000,000. Could there be a greater contrast between the indebtedness of two parts of the country whose relative capacity was originally fixed at 11 to 14? I am not making the point that. Northern Ireland should have paid any more than £6,000,000; I think it is the utmost amount that she could have paid. What I am saying is that, if Northern Ireland pays a contribution of £6,000,000, the total payment from the Irish Free State ought to be in the neighbourhood, not of £51,000,000, but of £8,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: May I ask the hon. Member a question? Does he know the amount of Income Tax that is paid by Ulster to the Imperial Government?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. HEALY: I know it is not a large sum, but I cannot remember what it is. There arises out of this question, however, a very curious circumstance. Under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, if Ulster had remained in the Free State, she could have kept the land annuities. If Ulster had remained in the Free State she would have regained the land annuities—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that we cannot go into that question now. It does not arise on the Motion that is before the House.

Mr. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his loyalty to the last Free State Government precludes him from agreeing to the reasonable demand of the present. Government, I think he is making a tremendous mistake. The Irish people resent coercion, as the right hon. Gentleman must have discovered a good time ago, and they will gladly suffer on an issue of this kind, especially when it is presented to them by one whom they regard as an old enemy. If there is anything that is worse than an old
enemy, it is a new enemy, and I am afraid that that is how many people in Ireland will be regarding this Administration in a short time. I am not going to make an appeal on national or sentimental grounds, but as matter of business. It is not a wise policy to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, especially to-day. The balance of trade, up to the end of 1931, was in favour of this country, and, therefore, it is pretty evident that the gain is entirely on the side of Great Britain. When once you have destroyed a trade, it is almost impossible to re-establish it within a generation. This is a trade war. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government, by their tactics and their action, have thrown the whole question of Ireland into the melting pot again. When you come to the final conference that is going to decide, not only this matter but the whole question of Ireland, it will not be on the basis of partition; it will be on the basis of a united Government for the whole country. Nothing short of that will be acceptable to the people. To-night you are sending to Ireland a message of war it will be so interpreted in every part of the Free State. It is a terrible responsibility that you are incurring; it is a terrible burden that you are taking upon your shoulders; you may well be described yet as "the man who lost Ireland."

Mr. ROSS: I always enjoy listening to a speech from my Member—for, although he very imperfectly represents my views, the hon. Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Healy) is one of my Members. I only regret that his colleague is not here. I must congratulate the last speaker on the fact that he always rises to speak comparatively early in a Debate if he can, while that venerable patriot, the senior Member for the constituency, always speaks so late that nobody else has an opportunity of answering him. Unfortunately, however, he is not in his place to-night; he is exhausted, I suppose, by his efforts in giving his reasons in writing for not being able to assist the Northern Ireland Government at the opening ceremony at Stormont. A milder speech than that of the last speaker I have never heard from him or his colleague. As a rule, their speeches are very definite and not altogether friendly, but to-night we had a plea for concilia-
tion, and that, in itself, I think, is rather a tribute to the policy of the Government towards Southern Ireland. The hon. Member has complained that there are bitter memories towards Ireland. Having some slight knowledge of what is being said in Southern Ireland at the moment about England, I should say that the bitter remarks are not all on one side; I think they are very much more from Southern Ireland than they have ever been from here, and I do not want bitter remarks to be made between one part of the United Kingdom and another. We have never, however, been spared bitter remarks from Southern Ireland; we have never been left alone. Southern Ireland and Irish republicans have never ceased their aggression towards the United Kingdom, and, in particular, towards the part of it which I have the honour to represent.
The hon. Member said the United Kingdom has had a favourable trade balance with Southern Ireland. Of course it has, and it still has. It has a more favourable trade balance now than it ever had in the past and I think it will have an increasingly favourable trade balance in the future when these duties are put on. It is a curious thing that, although I have listened to the hon. Member on several occasions, I have never once heard him raise his voice on behalf of his own constituents who have had duties put on against them by the Irish Free State. His whole interest is on behalf of Mr. de Valera's Government and the Irish Free State and how shameful it is to put duties on against the inhabitants of Southern Ireland. As one of his constituents, I protest that he has never used his weight and influence with Mr. de Valera—I am sure it is very great—to secure fairer terms for his own constituents and the people who suffer by the Irish Free State duties. He will recall that those duties were put on long before there were any duties against the Irish Free State. The partition of Ireland was a line along the boundary of counties until the Irish Free State began to put duties on that line. Those duties became heavier and heavier. A lot of extra duties were put on in January last by Mr. Cosgrave's Government and a lot more have been put on by Mr. de Valera's Government. I do not think there is anything that they could put a
duty on that they have not put a duty on. His constituents in Strabane and Inniskilling are suffering, but when have we heard him raise his voice in their defence? He is far too busy supporting Mr. de Valera and the Irish Free State.
He has referred to the Boundary Commission. He has a very queer idea of the Boundary Commission. It was a Commission on which the Irish Free State was represented by one of its most distinguished sons. Its president was a South African judge of unblemished reputation and impartiality, Northern Ireland was represented by a nominated member who was not a representative of the Northern Ireland Government. Because that Commission, after due and careful and impartial consideration, decided against the case of Southern Ireland and proposed a just boundary for Northern Ireland, which Northern Ireland had never had, it has always been denounced by the hon. Member and people of his way of thinking as an outrage. [Interruption.] No, but he knew what the award was going to be. He knows also that the Free State Commissioner was disowned by the Irish Free State because he agreed with the award that was going to be published. He knows that, in order to accept the boundary, which was much better than they deserved, they were let off their proportion of the National Debt, which the hon. Member has tried to say was really rather a grievance for Southern Ireland. The boundary is there and everything that the hon. Member and his friends have done for the last 10 years has made it more marked, and it will remain.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) demanded a compromise with Southern Ireland. There was once an occasion when a man had a controversy with his wife as to where they should go for the summer. She wished to go to Brighton and he wished to go to Eastbourne, so they effected a compromise and went to Brighton. That is the hon. Member's solution. Then there was the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). He gave us a very fine representation of Mr. de Valera's case and read out a large portion of his argument. Then he says that he is not a member of the Dail. I hope that, in view of to-night's performance, he will be made an honorary member of that
body. He thoroughly deserves the distinction. The situation has not been brought about by the action of this country. The last thing that we want in Northern Ireland is controversy. If Southern Ireland would only leave us alone, instead of this constant aggression, and would try to behave rationally, everything in Ireland would be far happier and far better. As to the present situation, it is a matter for the Government of this country. Discussion has been suggested. Discussion has been tried. The only other suggestions I have heard have been suggestions of surrender. I think the Government are sticking to the phrase, which is not unfamiliar in my constituency, of "No surrender."

Mr. LUNN: I think it would be very unbecoming in me to enter into an argument between constituent and Member because, if many of us had constituents who differed so much from us as the constituent of my hon. Friend differs from him, not many of us would be here. So I leave them to settle their dispute. We opposed these Orders in July for many reasons. We believed they would create bitterness between this country and. Ireland, and if that could be avoided it should be avoided. We opposed them because we believed there would be retaliation, and there has been retaliation. We opposed them because we believed they would create unemployment, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there has been unemployment in this country as the result of them. We opposed them because we believed our people would have to pay more for their food, as it was food upon which the duties were being placed. We have opposed them all the way and we oppose this new Order. We believe there should have been common sense applied to this business rather than this bitter feeling and this imposition of taxation. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that we will let every country off except those who are near and dear to us. I will never believe that this country should be the mulch cow for every nation on earth, but we have let foreign countries off many of the debts they owe us far greater than is owed to us by Southern Ireland. I believe we ought to have insisted on what was our
due more than we did. I have felt all the time that we had justice on our side in this case. I said it on the last occasion and I will not run away or quibble in anything that I have to say. I feel, as a layman—not as a lawyer—that our case was a justifiable case. I had no fears about going to arbitration. In fact the right hon. Gentleman said that they would welsome discussion at any time in order to settle the dispute. A dispute is admitted by the Government of Great Britain. It has been admitted for months in the discussions and the conferences which have taken place, and as there is a dispute the Government of Great Britain are prepared to go to arbitration, so they say. And so is the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State. I will quote from his letter which was published by the Dominions Office on 5th April, 1932, in which he stated:
The British Government can rest assured that any just and lawful claims of Great Britain, or of any creditor of the Irish Free State, will be scrupulously honoured by its Government.
That position has not been changed, as far as I know, up to this moment, because in the Debate which took place in July we were told pretty clearly that, although they disputed our rights to the annuities and other payments, they were going to retain them in a. suspense account until the matter was settled. We have accepted that, and have said that it ought to be settled by some tribunal. I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. I want to say that I have never seen an agreement nor had any evidence that any agreement was arrived at in any way that all Empire questions should go to an Empire tribunal. Where is there such an agreement? If there is one, the right hon. Gentleman should produce it. He has argued that there is one, and he ought to produce it. I call attention to the answer which he gave in this House on 27th January, 1931. That was in his better days when he was a member of the Labour party. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander):
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps have been taken for the setting up of a commonwealth tribunal, arising out of the decisions of the Imperial Conference?
He was under the impression that such a decision had been reached. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said:
The object of the recommendations of the Imperial Conference of 1930 in regard to a Commonwealth Tribunal was, as stated on page 23 of Command Paper 3717 to:
'facilitate resort'
to an arbitral tribunal
'by providing for the machinery whereby a tribunal could in any given case be brought into existence.'
It is not, therefore, necessary for any further steps to be taken unless and until a difference of the nature contemplated by the Conference should unfortunately arise between Members of the British Commonwealth when the machinery recommended by the Conference could be brought into operation by agreement between the parties to the dispute.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1931; cols. 766–7, Vol. 247.]
I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that that is the nearest approach to any agreement. I wished as did the right hon. Gentleman himself, an Empire tribunal to be agreed on by all parts of the Empire. It was one of the strong points of the Labour Government as represented in the Imperial Conference that we should do our utmost to establish a tribunal within the Empire to which all disputes could be sent. Now we know parties who disagree to the setting up of such a tribunal, and we know, as I said, in reply to the question, that there was no agreement to have a tribunal, and that the only understanding is that a conference could be brought into operation by agreement between the parties to the dispute. The Government of Great Britain and the Government of the Irish Free State do not agree on the question of an Empire tribunal. Hence the dispute which we have at the present time. Therefore, we cannot get the tribunal that most of us would desire to see brought into operation.
I believe that the duties that are being imposed will injure our trade and create unemployment, and that they will make greater difficulties for our own people as well as for the people of Southern Ireland. I hold no brief for Southern Ireland. I am an Englishman, but I am trying to look at the matter as fairly as I possibly can, and I believe that there is an alternative. The right hon. Gentleman asks: "What alternative is there to the present position?" Why should the Government of the United Kingdom always use the big stick upon
any other party? If we believe in the justice of our case, as the right hon. Gentleman believed, and as I believe, I would not mind going to any tribunal. Although I favour an Empire tribunal, and would like to see one established for the settlement of this dispute, believing as I do in the justice of our case, as the Government believes, I would have accepted immediately the suggestion of Mr. de Valera and would have gone to the tribunal of the kind he suggested. It would be better for both sides if we were to accept the tribunal suggested by the Irish Free State than to continue this policy of bitterness and hatred, and to continue the economic war that now exists from which we shall continue to suffer. We have only to have a Debate on Ireland to get some idea of what the Debates used to be in days gone by.
If this feeling continues, we shall have trouble for a. long time to come. There is a possibility of making a settlement of the matter. It should be brought about by arbitration. The question will have to be peaceably settled some time. Why not now? I do not believe that these duties are the best means of dealing with the matter. I do not believe that they were necessary. If commonsense had prevailed there would have been no reason for them. We have to pay dearly for this sort of thing. We have to pay for the duties which are being imposed by the Government upon nearly everything we use. The "Daily Herald" yesterday morning and this morning has opened a discussion on a matter about which we shall hear a great deal in the future, and that is that we are getting too much muck instead of the good produce that we ought to have in our shops. The Empire Marketing Board has tried to improve the quality of the produce that comes from the overseas parts of the Empire. The Empire Marketing Board might have done more. There is certainly a good deal to be done to improve the quality of produce that is sold in this country. We shall not get any improvement through import duties. Rather, we shall find that instead of having good food we shall get things, for the sake of making profit, that we ought not to get.
I understand that in the Irish Free State there are reprisals such as this: "Boycott British goods." We have spent
a lot of money in urging people to buy British goods. If we had carried on our policy of trying to be friendly with the Irish Free State, we ought to have avoided the present dispute. I do not regard the right hon. Gentleman as having succeeded in his negotiations. His reputation, which has been a good one in the past, as a negotiator has suffered. He is allowing us to go in in this way. By putting on duties the people will have to pay dearly for everything they need. He and I come from working class homes. Our fathers had to work hard for a living. There are millions of people similarly situated and they are going to pay the penalty for what the Government are doing by these import duties, of which these Orders seem to be the crowning point, making this a protectionist country, to which I, personally, am strongly opposed.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The closing words of the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) I appreciate and accept. He and I have been engaged all our lives in a struggle to secure justice and we have never shirked either the responsibilities or the consequences of obtaining justice. Therefore, it is an amazing situation which he and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) occupy this evening. I tried to ascertain from the hon. Member for Caerphilly an answer to this simple question. When he made the suggestion that we should depart from an Empire tribunal, did he speak authoritatively on behalf of his party? The hon. Member tried to evade it and did not clearly and specifically answer the point.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The right hon. Gentleman when he asked me that question also asked whether I repudiated what had been done in the past; and that is why I hesitated to give him a plain answer.

Mr. THOMAS: Without asking the hon. Member to repudiate anything, may I now take it that when he spoke to-night he spoke for the Labour party?

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMAS: That endorses my view that so far as the Irish dispute is concerned the Labour party would go outside the British Empire as a tribunal. Very well, we have that clear. I want
to remind the House of the difference between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway. Hon. Members below the Gangway say quite clearly, at least the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says that as far as he is concerned he is quite indifferent to any agreement which anybody makes. The only observation I have to make on that is that it is quite a consistent policy to which the hon. Member will never be called upon to give effect.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not mind a joke at my expense, but I was trying to put Mr. de Valera's position. What I said was that Mr. de Valera is only entitled to take responsibility for agreements that are in conformity with his own principles and made by himself.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS: In other words, that we should define our principles at a given moment. I now come to the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. The same question that was put to him by me to-night I dealt with in July, when this dispute first arose, and another hon. Member put the question specifically to the right hon. Gentleman who is the Leader of the Opposition. The suggestion was made from this side of the House by the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Janner) that the Leader of the Opposition had suggested a tribunal outside the Empire. The Leader of the Opposition, in order to put himself right at once with the country—

Mr. LANSBURY: I was thinking of saying what I thought, thinking aloud.

Mr. THOMAS: Very well. In other words, in order that he should think aloud—it would be so loud that everyone else would know—the right hon. Gentleman said this in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Whitechapel:
I think the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, when the hon. Member reads it, will convince him that none of us have said that we want Mr. de Valera to have a tribunal outside the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1932; col. 135, Vol. 268.]
That being so, in July of this year the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to a clear and specific question, said in effect, on behalf of his party, "So far as we of the Labour party are concerned we believe in an Empire tribunal."

Mr. LANSBURY: Quote what I have said.

Mr. THOMAS: I have quoted the exact words.

Mr. LANSBURY: Now you are not doing so.

Mr. THOMAS: We want Mr. de Valera to have a Commonwealth tribunal. The position we are in this evening is this: In July that view was not only expressed, but the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) were a party to a proviso made at Geneva that arbitration, so far as Dominion matters were concerned, must be by a tribunal within the British Commonwealth. Both of them were parties to it. Therefore I submit that they are not entitled this evening to go back on that declaration. No alternative policy is suggested. I have indicated quite clearly that we intend to obtain the money. I have indicated that we believe that, legally and morally, we are entitled to the money. No speaker has yet indicated any other method than the one we have adopted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes. We have suggested that you go across to Ireland.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but it would be just as reasonable for me to go to the hon. Member's constituency and tell them what I thought about him. No speaker has yet indicated any alternative to the Government's policy. Hon. Members have merely said: "Why not take the common-sense view and go to arbitration?" We answer by saying that we have offered to go to arbitration—

Mr. MAXTON: I said to cut the loss.

Mr. THOMAS: The difference between my hon. Friend's view and our view is that in saying that we should "cut the loss," he means that we should bear it. As far as we are concerned, we have made up our minds that we are not going to bear it, and as for "cutting the loss" is concerned, that is cut out. Therefore, keeping that fact clearly in mind I repeat to the House that we offered on the last occasion to go to arbitration. Speaking now, before the Division is taken, on behalf of the Government I repeat our desire to submit this matter to arbitration, but the arbitration must be within the British
Commonwealth of Nations. I made that condition before and I make it now and in our desire and our anxiety and our determination to obtain what we believe we are justly entitled to, we see no alternative to the proposals which we now submit to the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I had not intended to take part in this discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman has done what apparently the Government always do when they are in a corner, and that is to call in aid their late colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to quote something which I said some months ago in answer to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner). I call the attention of the House to the fact that on that occasion I was speaking to an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) which was to insert words as follows:
in the event of the Secretary of State for the Dominions certifying that there has been a decision of a court of arbitration set up by agreement between His Majesty's Governments for the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State or, failing such agreement, appointed by representatives of the Dominions assembled in Imperial Conference, that the Irish Free State have failed to implement, etc.
The point is that we were suggesting that, as you could not agree to the appointment of a tribunal and as you were going to Ottawa, the question should be referred to the Ottawa Conference for consideration there. That Amendment was lost on a Division but during the discussion the hon. Member for Whitechapel raised the question of our position in regard to an Empire tribunal and I said:
I think the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow when the hon. Member reads it will convince him that none of us have said that we want Mr. de Valera to have a tribunal outside the Commonwealth.
Later on someone else said something on the matter and following the genial example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite I interrupted and said:
I am sorry my hon. and learned Friend is not here at the moment, but the point that I understood him to make and which I should have tried to make if I had spoken on the subject was that it should be a tribunal within the British Empire. Mr. de Valera does not agree with that and as I understand it he takes his stand upon the fact that it is not obligatory even according to the statements made in the Summary of Proceedings from which the
hon. Member quotes that the tribunal should be within the Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1932; cols. 135–136, Vol. 268.]
That is the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The right hon. Gentleman, during the last Debates on this subject, when I asked him specifically whether the Irish Free State had ever agreed that in the case of a dispute between themselves and other Dominions it should go to an Empire tribunal, himself answered me, "No, that was not so." I put it to him that if there was a dispute between the Irish Free State and South Africa, could anyone prevent those two States taking this to a court outside the British Empire? The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody could. [HON. MEMBERS: "By agreement."] Well, they could not do it without agreement obviously. The same evening I said—and I am quoting this because the right hon. Gentleman referred to what I said; I am very pleased he thinks that what I have said is so important:
I am not a lawyer.…I understood that this matter came up for discussion today, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, because there was disagreement in the Imperial Conference as to this particular business, and because of that disagreement no definite decision was arrived at."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1932; col. 138, Vol. 268.]
I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman will challenge that. He stands there and says what I know, as a Member of the Cabinet, I agreed to. I agreed that, so far as the British Government were concerned, we wanted a tribunal within the British Empire, but the Irish Free State has never agreed to that, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it, and we cannot impose it upon the Irish Free State. That being so—[Interruption.] The amazing thing to me is the levity with which people are entering on a tariff war with people, within 10 hours' journey of this place, who have been associated with us for centuries, and yet this matter is treated as a joke. You are going to inflict untold sufferings on thousands of people in this country and in Ireland, and that is a matter, not for joking, but for getting the facts clear. It is no use saying that the Irish Free State has ever agreed to an Empire tribunal on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges that, I will undertake tomorrow, if Mr. Speaker will allow me, to read out his categorical answer to my categorical question to him.
First, is it a fact that Ireland and South Africa can take a dispute to an outside tribunal? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that cannot be done? [HON. MEMBERS: "By agreement."] If that is true, then it is true that this country, by agreement, can do the same thing with Mr. de Valera. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not agree."] I know you do not, and that is where we disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a question of what I said or thought yesterday. I think now that it would be better if this business could be settled between ourselves within the Empire, but because the Irish Free State will not accept that, I think we, being the stronger Power, being the more wealthy Power, might meet the situation and say, as was said by my hon. Friend, "We will let the case go to a tribunal of the kind for which you ask." We are strong enough and wealthy enough to do it, and if I am charged with something that I agreed to in the late Government, I am only in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has changed a thousand of his opinions within the last 12 months. But I am not; I still want that done, but as it cannot be done, I am not in favour of starving either the Irish people or the people in our own country.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: My justification for taking part in this Debate at this late hour is that I have sat here since 7 o'clock in order to say a word on a subject on which I feel strongly. The Leader of the Opposition did his party justice when he rose so late to try and counter what was rather a cheap debating point on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Dominions. We do expect in a full House to have a little more argument and a slightly different type of speech from that which we got from the right hon. Gentleman in his winding up. All he was thinking of was scoring rather cheap points off the Opposition. I complain of the right hon. Gentleman right from the beginning of these negotiations. I look upon him as a very desirable member of the Government who, however, lives a sort of Jekyll and Hyde existence from my point of view. In everything he does except Ireland he is admirable, but mention the word Ireland, and he changes entirely the whole complexion of life. Look at him
during this Debate, in which scarcely a soul has had a free hand in speaking because of his interruptions. Why does he not let the Under-Secretary say a word on this subject occasionally? It may be that by being associated with bad friends he gets into bad ways. I can quite understand that when he negotiates with Mr. de Valera he gets into one of those intransigent moods in which it is impossible to negotiate on either side, and as Mr. de Valera becomes impossible, our representatives become more impossible as the negotiations proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Irish are a very proud and curious people. You have only to mention Ireland in these Debates and the speeches instantly go back to Cromwell, and generally develop into war between North and South. Happily, we have been saved a good deal of that to-night, but it very nearly got on to it. The question of history is always present in an Irishman's thoughts, and it was unfair of the right hon. Gentleman the other day, when he made a statement about his negotiations with de Valera, to bring up what to the ordinary English mind is a perfectly fantastic claim, but which to the Irishman is a very real one. When we were negotiating with France about debts, did anyone, in order to get a cheap laugh, bring up the question of France asking us to pay rent for our own trenches? Nobody did. But the right hon. Gentleman will employ anything that is meant to disparage and make fools of the Irish. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The people of that country are realising more than they ever have how dependent economically they are upon this country. The whole feeling and

realisation in Ireland is towards the strong linkage there is between Ireland and this country. In fact, I think that you can make a pro-English speech in Ireland without being thrown off your platform. That is a very remarkable thing. Is the imposition of this impossible tariff going to have an effect upon that or not? That is one of the difficulties of this situation.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows what repercussions this Order will have. He says that he is putting this extra tariff on because he wants more money, but he knows that if you put tariffs on beyond a certain level you will not get more money. We had an illustration of that in the champagne duty, and to-night we are asked to pass what is absolutely prohibitive taxation. Who is going to be bit? It is not this time the big man but all those small farmers up and down Ireland who produce their turkey or sell their goose. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been to the West of Ireland. Possibly the poorest people live there under the most distressing conditions, and those are the people we are going to hit to-night. I am afraid I am not one of those politicians who can always agree with my own side. If I were, I might be sitting on the Treasury Bench. I say I might, and I have said that before. I have disapproved of the policies both of the Opposition and, sometimes, of my own friends, but until to-night I have never felt ashamed of a British Government as I do by the imposition of these penal duties.

Question put,

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 37.

Division No. 356.]
AYES
[10.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colman, N. C. D.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Conant, R. J. E.


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Cook, Thomas A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Browne, Captain A. C.
Copeland, Ida


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Cranborne, Viscount


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Burnett, John George
Craven-Ellis, William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Bateman, A. L.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcoim
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crossley, A. C.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Carver, Major William H.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bernays, Robert
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Bossom, A. C.
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Dickle, John P.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Donner, P. W.


Drewe, Cedric
Knox, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dunglass, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Robinson, John Roland


Eastwood, John Francis
Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lees-Jones, John
Rosbotham, S. T.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Runge, Norah Cecil


Elmley, Viscount
Liewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Saimon, Major Isidore


Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard
Lymington, Viscount
Salt, Edward W.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Fremantie, Sir Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Magnay, Thomas
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gledhill, Gilbert
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somarvell, Donald Bradley


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Greene, William P. C.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Soper, Richard


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro,' W).
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stones, James


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Storey, Samuel


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hanbury, Cecil
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Harbord, Arthur
North, Captain Edward T.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Harris, Sir Percy
Nunn, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, Terence James
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormlston, Thomas
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Train, John


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Patrick, Colin M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hopkinson, Austin
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hornby, Frank
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Weymouth, Viscount


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pybus, Percy John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-colonel George


Janner, Bernett
Ramsden, E.
Womersley, Walter James


Jennings, Roland
Rankin, Robert
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ray, Sir William
Wragg, Herbert


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rea, Walter Russell
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, David D. (County Down)



Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Commander Southby and Dr.


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R.
Morris Jones.


Knebworth, Viscount
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Crones and Mr. D. Graham.

Resolved,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Order, 1932, dated the twelfth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twelfth day of July, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1932, dated the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventh day of November, be approved."—[Mr. J. H. Thomas.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 38.

Division No. 357.]
AYES.
[11.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Entwistie, Cyrll Fullard
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Albery, Irving James
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Magnay, Thomas


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Apsley, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln
Malialieu, Edward Lancelot


Atholl, Duchess of
Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Fraser, Captain Ian
Martin, Thomas B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gledhill, Gilbert
Mitcheson, G. G.


Bateman, A. L.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moreing, Adrian C.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Greene, William P. C.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Blindell, James
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Munro, Patrick


Bossom, A. C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Normand, Wilfrid Guild


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
North, Captain Edward T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanbury, Cecil
Nunn, William


Brown.Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Browne, Captain A. C.
Harbord, Arthur
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormiston, Thomas


Burnett, John George
Henderson, Sir Vivlan L. (Chelmsford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Patrick, Colin M.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey division)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Carver, Major William H.
Hopkinson, Austin
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Howard, Tom Forrest
Pike, Cecil F.


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Percy John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsden, E.


Conant, R. J. E.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rankin, Robert


Cook, Thomas A.
Jennings. Roland
Ray, Sir William


Copeland, Ida
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rea, Walter Russell


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Craven-Ellis, William
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Remer, John R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knebworth, Viscount
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Robinson, John Roland


Dalkelth, Earl of
Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lees-Jones, John
Rosbotham, S. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Dickie, John P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Runge, Norah Cecil


Drewe, Cedric
Liewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salmon, Major Isidore


Dunglass, Lord
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Salt, Edward W.


Eastwood, John Francis
Lymington, Viscount
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elmley, Viscount
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Weymouth, Viscount


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-colonel George


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, Waiter James


Soper, Richard
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wragg, Herbert


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J
Train, John
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Stones, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Storey, Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
and Lord Erskine.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wardiaw-Milne, Sir John S.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Healy, Cahir
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert



Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Resolved,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1932, dated the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventh day of November, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.